Michael Savage vs. Britain

Really, I can think of a lot of Americans worse than Savage. The guy who threw the baby out of the window onto the interstate. Richard Poplawski. David Duke. Stephen Black.

I think this whole situation is preposterous and utterly embarrassing for Britain. First, free speech should be a right in all nations whether it's a democracy or a constitutional monarchy. I'm not defending Savage particularly (I think he's a scumbag), but he has every right to say what he wants to say. I may not defend him on his content, but I will defend him on his right.

Second, Savage isn't even that bad. He's nowhere near on the levels on Stephen Black or Gliebe. Plus, if you're gonna ban Savage for hate speech, you gotta ban multitudes more who are on the same level as him. Hannity? Limbaugh? Beck?

Hell, I say ban Janeane Garofalo for making hate filled comments about Conservatives and Libertarians on Olbermann's show a few weeks ago. See how lame this thing is.

Just because you think a guy is a piece of shit (which someone like Fred Phelps is), doesn't mean he's less of a person than you under the law.

The idea that one country has the ability to ban someone from entering because of the speech just seems so trivial to me. I say let them in and heckle them when they arrive, when they speak, and when they leave.

Isn't this just a consequence of free speech, though? After all, Britain isn't demanding that Savage and Phelps stop speaking; in fact, there's no provision that allows them entry if they promise to stop speaking. The government has simply determined, through their frequent exercise of that U.S.-guaranteed free speech, that they're assholes and aren't welcome.

Free speech is not consequence-free speech.

For the sake of schaudenfreude, I'm enjoying it, but in reality, Britain had no business banning the guy. He's not a terrorist. Now Phelps...

Even Phelps is not a terrorist, just a hate monger. Although the man may be the next coming of Jim Jones.

The fact that he can't go to another country and tell people about his beliefs seems like a strangling of his free speech to me. You should be able to go where you wanna go, tell who you wanna tell, say what you wanna say to anyone. And then the consequences should kick in. Like whether we should throw tomatoes at you or write our own free speech-laden newspaper critiques against you.

It just seems so ridiculous to me that Britain would ban a guy for hate speech toward Islam, yet one of the biggest selling books in the world (and the UK) comes from Christopher Hitchens (who I admire and respect for his views on religion) who blasts Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in a manner Savage could only dream of.

I just do not understand how Britain can make such an argument to find Savage's material hate speech, but Hitchens's not. Is it because Savage is... Savage in his demeanor and Hitchens is mostly cool and collected when he debates? Is it because Hitchens is well liked in Britain and Savage isn't? It just seems so arbitrary and trivial to me.

I do agree with Nordling though. I think Phelps is borderline. The actions of his followers at Westboro wreak havoc on a lot of families suffering in times of need. I don't think Savage is anywhere close to that. If I'm wrong, I'll be happily to admit it, but to me Savage is just the same as a lot of the crazy partisan radio talk show hosts in America.

I'm not even sure why they published such a list or why the singled him out of all the crazies in the world.

This is kind of embarrassing for Britain and a gold mine for Savage.

The silly thing is that the list is 22 people. I mean, I think they shouldn't ban anyone, but when it's only 22 people, each one better be babykillingly bad.

Dave's right that it's not really a free speech issue. No country in the world has extends a right to visit to all foreigners.

That said, it certainly feels like one and will be interpreted like that by many people. Plus it serves little purpose except to give him a massive attention windfall. I imagine the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity would pay a decent amount to get their names added to the list.

Maybe they just finished reading final crisis and mistook him for Vandal Savage?

Ladies and gentlemen, Snaieke channeling Fleed. You forgot the ellipses.

I shouldn't say Britain had no business banning him - they're a sovereign country, they can do what they want. But this just gives his bullshit message a megaphone.

Yep. Savage is batshit insane but he's loving this. Since he's been banned from most normal media outlets this is the only press he gets so he's going to milk it for all its worth. Its a win/win for him and makes Britian look a bit silly.

Can't wait for the ACLU to take this one on.....

British immigration law probably falls a wee bit outside the purview of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Yeah, that wouldn't work.

I'm not sure of British governmental immunity, but if it's anything like American law, the defamation suit won't fly. The U.S. Government takes sovereign immunity on any intentional tort and defamation unless there was a specific intentional tort (defamation wouldn't work here) done by a law enforcement officer. I wouldn't know how Savage could argue defamation here.

Has this guy actively encouraged violence against anyone? Specifically? Repeatedly? Being a hateful moron isn't enough to get someone banned from a country, I agree. But I won't lose sleep over it, and it's not an infringement on the guy's freedom of speech even if England guarantees such things to those under its power, like the US's Constitution does its visitors. If this is an infringement on one's freedom of speech then so is every trespassing statute and every locked door.

Loudly. And often. Just you wait. Has being dead wrong ever stopped these guys before? And was Barack Obama born in the United States?

Pompoussory Estoppel, are you really comparing the unremitting spew of bile that issues from Michael Savage every day of the week with a few comments from Janeane Garofalo on Olbermann's show? Really?

Well, trespassing laws exist because we value the rights of property, not free speech. I see your point, but it seems a tenuous comparison between kicking you out of my apartment for being a douchebag and banning someone from entering a country because of what they said in another country that pissed someone off.

You're right, he's gonna make some sort of argument, but what is it actually going to mean? What are his damages? What is the actual blow to his reputation?

I don't see the difference because it's difficult to make the argument that Savage's speech leads to violence. If you can explicitly show me studies that the words of Michael Savage lead to violence (like the correspondence of the KKK in the 60s and onward) then I'll change my opinion.

Again, just because you don't like the words of someone doesn't mean their speech is any different than similarly offensive words (to some people) made by someone you agree with.

I found Garofalo's comments very offensive, despicable, and really no different than anything Michael Savage says on a daily basis. To me, it doesn't matter how many times someone says something. You say it, it's offensive. I'm not gonna qualify a statement because its said more times than someone else.

Michael Savage is one of the most brilliant...talk radio hosts in this country...and Jacqui Smith is just another high level politician, that says dumb things (making her seem like a British version of...Janet Napolitano). No one should put Michael Savage on a list of people banned from flying to England, from murderers and other dangerous people.

The British official said letting Savage in their country would likely lead to violence (not from Savage). I don't know if she realizes it but she's actually insulting the British citizenry.

"This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."

"If people have so clearly overstepped the mark in terms of the way not just that they are talking but the sort of attitudes that they are expressing to the extent that we think that this is likely to cause or have the potential to cause violence or inter-community tension in this country, then actually I think the right thing is not to let them into the country in the first place. Not to open the stable door then try to close it later," Ms Smith said.

"It's a privilege to come to this country. There are certain behaviours that mean you forfeit that privilege."

Sounds like she's saying that expressing unsavory viewpoints is the major reason why these people can't enter the country, not that their mere presence would piss off a lot of people and lead them to violence.

What makes her think that the speech Savage states leads to violence here?

Yes, that's why I meant. She's saying British citizens can't handle his views ... even when he hasn't really being accused of fomenting violence.

It's a false equivalency, Pompoussory Estoppel. You can argue until you're blue in the face about how offensive you find Garofalo but you're still talking about a single appearance on a single show, not a daily platform from which Savage can call a CNN reporter "a self-hating white woman, who couldn't get a job as a hooker"; calls autism "A fraud, a racket. ... In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out"; calls gay parenting "child abuse"; called the Duke rape victim a "dirty, verminous black stripper"; and complains that "The radical homosexual agenda ... threaten[s] your very survival."

This is to name just a few and doesn't include his daily smears about Obama, first as a candidate/senator and now as this nation's President, as every kind of villain you can dream up from a Muslim terrorist to a Nazi to a Manchurian Candidate. And evidently people listen to him every day. Compare that to Garofalo on a single program calling Tea Party goers racists.

I'm not even addressing what's going on in Britain, just your false comparison, which, I'm sorry, doesn't hold water.

ps. as an aside, isn't it bizarre how much he rants against the "homosexual agenda" when in his semi-autobiographical novel Vital Signs, he wrote, "I choose to override my desires for men when they swell in me, waiting out the passions like a storm, below decks." Geez.

It's not about saying things that piss people off. That's not the British government's argument at all.


Nothing. Reactionary radio voice gets upset. Stay tuned for details.


I've often asked myself a similar question regarding people like Savage.


Solidify it. He has a reputation as a particularly vindictive hateful sunofabitch.



Incidentally, I think the list is so short because to actually go so far as to be barred from entry is really difficult. We have hatespeech laws in Canada, but convictions are thinner on the ground than those for slander.

YT, Yes you are entitled to your opinion...But what Duke rape victim? Do you mean the woman that caused Duke Officials to fire their Lacrosse coach, and suspend 3 students, and cancel the rest of their games, because of her allegations...which turned out to be false? Is that who you mean? To me...She (The...Stripper) is as credible as...Tawana Brawley! I do not agree with Savage about...Autism though, and he has other views I do not agree with. Also, Janine Garafalo, has said more than one outrageous thing...but, she is allowed to state her opinion. I wouldn't ban her from being in England either, if she offended British Officials the way Savage does.

Duke Fleed, so, Michael Savage with his daily spew for three hours or whatever is the same as Janeane Garofalo, who made exactly one 5 minute or so appearance on a single episode of Olbermann? You think that's equivalent?

YT, Janine Garafalo is as far left as Savage is far right. In their own way they are one in the same. They both say outrageous things. I have seen Ms. Garafalo on numerous talk shows. She said that people who do not like President Obama are...Racist. That may seem like a little thing to you, but it is not so small to me. However, anyone that invites her to join their talk show should expect her to be quite outspoken, as well as leftist on many issues, and that is fine, that is one reason why it is good that...The US is a free country.

yt I cannot state this emphatically enough - 'he' is not real. Do not engage.

He is the closest thing on the boards to a Kaufmanesque 'joke' that forgot to be funny. People have grown tired of reacting to his shtick in movie forums so he's moved into the political realm to stir shit.

Do not engage

Janeane Garofalo has made a lot of really terrible comments regarding conservatives.

The point I was trying to make is that hate speech is what you make of it. I don't find a lot of Savage's stuff all that bad because it's no different than some of the stuff uttered by liberal talk show hosts or scholars. Olbermann says some nasty stuff a lot and I think Ed Schultz does as well.

Savage is no different than any talk show host who makes inflammatory comments. There's no evidence that his comments alone incite violence in this country, so the idea that Savage is somehow worse than anyone else is just plain ridiculous.

That is essentially their argument. Either Savage's comments provoke hatred, which pisses off the government or his comments will piss off the British people and cause them to riot in the streets in protest.

Well true, he is kinda fucked in the head. You got me there.

If his reputation is solidified as such, there is essentially no defamatory statement. A defamatory statement must make some sort of damage to his reputation. Also while I find the actions of the British government to be ridiculous, they didn't really make any false statements. True statements are really tough to show defamation. Usually defamatory statements are made with actual malice in regards to public persons.

Yeah, I somewhat agree here. I don't like applying a political spectrum of what's far right and left, but I will say that her comments can be just as offensive or hateful to people she's talking about. Her comments on Olbermann's show offended me deeply.

Also, if Garofalo gets a pass, shouldn't any white guy who randomly throws out the n-word? Or should random racist remarks be taken more seriously than the constant people-who-believe-in-a-different-political-ideology-than-me-are-neanderthals remarks?

What about the woman golf pro who made a measly comment about lynching Tiger Woods?

The Rain Dog, No...I am as real as you! Maybe, I don't believe that you are real. I have opinions on everything, and I am equally vocal about them in person, as I am online. I am not here to just stir S_ _ _!, I am here because I want to be part of the best website, and best forum on The Net...CHUD.COM!

No, it's what the law makes of it.

I find this hard to believe. But I may just be aware of the scum that has floated to the top of the internet. Even talk radio I agree with gets monotonous.

Well he's certainly worse than you or me! As for evidence, he says an awful lot of hateful things about Muslims and you'll recall that England has a proportionally higher (I think. Sure seemed that way.) and much more high-profile Muslim (count on this one) population. This probably has a lot to do with it.

What? Provoking hatred means people attack other people or property. That's the point at which these things are usually judged to be crossing the line. Promoting or inciting violence is the issue here. That this might happen to piss off the local government is not the point. All crimes piss off the government. That's what a crime is: pissing off The Man. You can't 'piss off' a government anyway, it has no emotions. No glands, y'see.

You don't have to agree with them, and I don't know that I do. I don't much care what happens to Michael Savage, really. But I can understand why they might want no part of him.


Oh, legally. I was thinking in the social context. Yes, I'm sure he has no legal leg to stand on as well. I can't see how he could. You can't force a country to let you within its borders if you were stopped officially. If you're stopped by a guard beating you up at customs for kicks, yes, I imagine there'd be some appeal.

I really don't see what the big deal is here. It's their house and they're allowed to say who can enter it. I'm sure America turns people back at customs all the goddamn time because there's something someone in power doesn't like about them.

The only issue was that they announced it, which is dumb. But truth be told, no country ever HAS to let you in, especially if they find you to be an insufferable loud-mouthed fucknugget who appeals to the worst in humankind.

There's the issue of incitement, which is interpreted rather differently in Europe under common law than the assumption of speech freedoms that we have here in the States.

The UK has to be especially sensitive to this issue. Not to derail the thread, but the British government is in a massively precarious position, in regards to homegrown terrorism and its un-assimilated Muslim population. Getting convictions for terror cases there is unimaginably difficult, much more so than in America, which means that every measure has to be taken to preempt a lot of these threats.

This means, to a degree, watching speech much more closely. Incitement is taken to be a serious offense, and it's no secret that the government has its ears in the mosques and on the streets listening for just that. Historically, this same sort of stance has been applied to the IRA and pIRA, so it's not necessarily solely limited to the Muslim population.

Point being, Michael Savage can be interpreted as inciting violence. All his chatter about commu-nazis and femi-fascists obscures real threats while, at the same time, offering cover for ideological motivated hate. I'm not saying he's as bad as an imam calling his mosque to kill infidels . . . wait, fuck that, that is what I'm saying. Timothy McVeigh was Savage's target audience. Fuck him.

Britain is (wisely, I think) evading possible charges from it's own Muslim population that it is exercising a double standard. You let Michael Savage into the country, it becomes that much harder to deny entry to extremist Islamist thinkers while maintaining equanimity with the British-based Muslim populace.

I think mentioning the IRA brings up an interesting extra dimension to this, that the UK has been dealing with the threats of honest-to-goodness 'taerism' as the US defined it post 9-11, for a helluva lot fucking longer than its friends across the Atlantic - since the beginning of the seventies really.

As such, their reaction may seem extreme to American eyes, but the factors Zhukov very correctly points out (great post actually) need to be looked at through that lense of having dealt with modern terrorism a good deal longer.

Sovereign nations are not bound to follow the US constitution or any of its amendments, you know. Savage's asshatery is not an issue in Britain and I'm sure they would like it to remain so.

And besides that, a country where you're not allowed to say fuck on TV but you're allowed to say that gays are perverts who want to brainwash and molest your children, isn't an example I'd like Europe to follow.

The one who uses the term "femi-nazi" is Rush Limbaugh, which begs the question ... why is he banned as well. This seems pretty arbitrary and weird. And making the point that they can allow anybody they want is kind of a waste of time no? I think we all agree on that, doesn't mean that this makes sense or is consistent in any way. To me, it just seems as you imply, that they're trying to "balance" things out to seem fair when banning some of the people they really don't want in their country.

It almost seems they picked him out of an internet search rather than some serious concern.

The irony of this is that he was called The Home Secretary (Jacqui Smith) a liberal.

And she is responsible for some of the more draconian laws this government is trying to get through. If she hadn't banned him from entering the country they would get on rather well.

Seriously, our insane Home Seceretty (who the press call Waqui Jaqui) deservers a whole thread to herself but here is a taster,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqui_...Home_Secretary

Jacqui Smith? Isn't she the one who's husband was caught charging the ministry for his porn?

Thats the one.

The same woman who was trying to put the squeeze on the Porn Industry with harsher laws...... in the same week her husband was caught watching it.

Well actually that makes a lot of sense!

For the record, "racist" is not a derogatory term. It's a description and, while it may be used inaccurately (as Garofalo did), it's not even in the same ballpark as calling gay parenting "child abuse" or degrading a reporter simply because she's a woman (would you say that a male reporter couldn't get a job as a hooker?).

Sorry, but if you've got white, male, heterosexual privilege going for you and someone says you're a racist, it's simply not the same as you exercising that privilege to further put down those in less privileged statuses. Speaking as a white, male heterosexual, if someone called me a racist or homophobe, I would have autonomy to make a choice: evaluate what I did to make someone say this or blow it off. If I were a homosexual man, and someone said that I would inevitably abuse any child that I tried to raise, there would be institutional ramifications to consider - it's not just me blowing it off, but it's the matter of how others perceive me. Similarly, if I were a woman just doing my job and someone reduced me to my sexuality, it would be a reinforcement of long-held and harmful stereotypes - it wouldn't just be a matter of me blowing it off, but of a tradition of cultural perception.

Add to that the fact that Garofalo hasn't made a career of calling conservatives "racist," and you've got, as yt said, a false equivalency. It's intellectually dishonest.

DaveB, Your entire post...is one of the more...Idiotic!, that I have read on...CHUD.COM. It doesn't matter what background you are from...Someone, it doesn't matter what race they are, that is...racist, is always in the wrong. To be racist, shows that person revels in their shortcomings, rather than embrace a positive outlook on life,liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I take it you don't read your own posts?

Haha Duke Fleed scores! Who would've thunk it?

DaveB, we are in the 21st Century. That schtick about "White Male Privilege" is hopelessly out of date when you consider that white males have a much higher unemployment rate vs. woman of any race. (just one example).