Forums | MacLife

The CCTV cameras everywhere didn't clue you in earlier?

Last edited by Gurlugon (2009-05-06 5:24 pm)

I haven't listened to Mr Savage, but am aware of him and have read some of his "greatest hits" / most incendiary stuff, and I think the characterization as "a second string Limbaugh trying catch up by being even more crazy than Rush" is pretty accurate.

I wonder how hard he (and his agents ? ) had to lobby for this designation ?  Call my cynical, but it only looks free publicity for the guy, playing well with his typical (Limbaughtomized) audience.  Either that or yet another screw-up by the UK Labour Government.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Controversial daily radio host. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.

As far as I know I have never heard any of what Savage says. Poking around online I see it seems he is kind of a second string Limbaugh trying catch up by being even more crazy than Rush.
Being a Free Speech purist I can't approve but cant say I am surprised. England seems to be sliding rather swiftly into being an upscale police state.
Sad.

I don't see how anyone's free speech is being abridged. They lumped him with a list of extremists and don't want him entering their country. I assume every country has such a list. Much ado about nothing if you ask me.

I guess my reaction reflects my distaste for the "hate speech" laws that infest the UK and the EU. I know we have some too but no where near the extent cross the pond.

Nowhere in our constitution does it imply that exercising your right to free speech will be completely without consequences. It simply states that the government will, for the most part, refrain from being the source of those consequences.

I see this as a bully getting stepped on, and it amuses me.

Presumably, since to be unprotected they would have to violate a law. So, there would have to be a law specifically written to outlaw certain speech by foreign nationals.
And I doubt that anyone has passed something like that.

Probably, but since I'm not a lawyer I don't really know of any case law to cite.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

It's a major personal failing on your part, but most of us forgive you for it.

Not being a lawyer or not wishing to comment authoritatively on something which I do not have authoritative knowledge of?

Well, heck. Is MoFT in my brain. I make a Michael Savage crack in another thread, and then scroll down, and here's a whole thread on the joker.

I'm not keen on hate laws. I think that they're moronic. But, it doesn't surprise me that Mr. Savage ran into trouble with such laws. If you've ever heard his brand of talk-radio...

This is the prick who said "you should only get AIDS and die you pig" to a gay caller on his radio show?

He should be allowed in to the UK and escorted directly from Heathrow airport to one of the rougher gay bars in London and left there to meditate on the consequences of his actions.

Here is the UK Home Office's press release on the exclusion list. On Savage it summarizes him as:

Controversial daily radio host. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which may lead to inter-community violence.

Note that this particular list includes Fred "God hates fags" Phelps and his daughter.

I like how Savage has claimed that he will be seeking legal action against Britain on this banning. Who is he going to go to--the World Court?

Pariah wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I guess my reaction reflects my distaste for the "hate speech" laws that infest the UK and the EU. I know we have some too but no where near the extent cross the pond.

But then again America hasn't experienced bring ruled and slaughtered by tyrants who rise to power on a wave of insane, hateful rabble-rousing.

The best answer to hateful speech is a robust and free responce. Just call me a believer in the free market of ideas.

There's power and reach to consider, not just basic rights. A right implies equal protection, and it's the nature of effective mass communication to drown out dissent. The effect of drowning out alternate ideas is to deny equal speech.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2009-05-07 5:47 pm)