DUmmies truly believe in free speech (but not for us)

[Ralph Wiggum]

alp227 (1000+ posts)        Wed May-25-11 03:26 PM
Original message
Jonathan Turley: England Reaffirms Ban on Radio Host Michael Savage

 England now appears to have reaffirmed the decision and accuses Savage of promising to retract some of his statements and failing to do so. While I strongly disagree with many of Savage’s statements, I view the ban as part of a disturbing trend limiting free speech in the West and particularly in England.

In the communication below, Treasury Solicitor Michael Atkins tells counsel for Savage that he previously assured the government that Savage would repudiate some of his comments on his website. It also says that Savage promised to appeal the earlier decision and failed to do so.

Savage was informed last July that the Cameron administration would continue the prior ban on his entry into the country unless he repudiated statements made on his broadcasts that were considered a threat to public security. The very notion of ideas being a threat to public safety is the hallmark of censorship and governmental abuse. While then–British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith insisted that it is “important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here,” he omitted free speech.

The most recent letter is equally disturbing. It puts the burden on Savage to show that his ideas are not a threat to public security — a ridiculous burden when the only way to do so appears to be the repudiation of his beliefs and ideas.

More: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/25/england-reaffirms-... /

The letter (3 pages): http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/savag...

 

mmonk  (1000+ posts)         Wed May-25-11 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good for them.
 If we'd ban these SOB's from untruthful hateful speech pretending to be political discussion here, we might could fix our country.

alp227 (1000+ posts)        Wed May-25-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I'm not sure if I totally agree with you...it's a free speech vs. public threats issue
 Edited on Wed May-25-11 03:38 PM by alp227
After Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot, initial speculation was that rabid right-wing hate speech influenced the shooter Jared Loughner...turned out it was mostly because of mental issues rather than politics.

Thing is, does good government ban all speech that might be misconstrued as a call for violence?

And I bet that sometime on his radio show Savage whined about how America lets in all those illegal aliens yet he can't legally go to England. What about the position that immigration is a right, if I recall correctly that is supported by the UN. And of course the UN supports free speech too as an international standard.

mmonk  (1000+ posts)         Wed May-25-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I don't really expect many to agree with me.
 Edited on Wed May-25-11 04:12 PM by mmonk
When the 1st amendment was written, it was written in an age where there was no broadcast media and was designed so that persons who had grievances with government could speak freely and could also assemble and air them. I don't feel modern dishonest hate speech on the radio directed at persons not available to defend themselves fits the intent for the 1st amendment.

Ever hear Olbermann or Malloy, jackass?

AlabamaLibrul  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-25-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I agree with you. Federally regulated airwaves = not free speech. Pretty much by definition. nt

Joe Fields  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-25-11 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. England is not part of the U.S.
 They have every right to censor Savage. IMO, he abuses the right of free speech. I think he should be censored here in the U.S.

mn9driver  (829 posts)         Wed May-25-11 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. Britain has centuries of historical examples of what can happen when inciteful speech isn't checked.
 Jews, Catholics, Protestants, foreigners, Royalists, Parliamentarians, have all been mob killed, executed and in some cases exterminated over the years due to speakers who riled up the people. Sometimes such speech might have been justified, but many more times it was not. Savage's statements clearly fall into the category of incitement and most of his worst ones are demonstrably untrue.

Britain has every right to keep this idiot out. It only took a thousand years, but they may have learned some things that we in the US have not.

truebrit71  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-25-11 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. I wholeheartedly disagree with Prof Turley.
 Savage's words are hate-speech and as such are banned. He hasn't backed away from anything he has said so he gets to stay banned.

**** him, and good for the Brits!

That's the entire thread.  Strange logic, but not surprising that they believe the first amendment should not apply to anyone who disagrees with their warped point of view.

[Skul]

I'd be afraid to look for all the treads and comments calling for censorship of opposing views.
Free speech for DUmmies only!
They don't seem to understand the First Amendment is because of the likes of them.

[FiddyBeowulf]

Ever hear Olbermann or Malloy, jackass?

Not to quibble but according to their ratings, not many people have. 

[Karin]

ban these SOB's from untruthful hateful speech pretending to be political discussion

Lurking DUers:  Do you really support this?  Have you thought it all the way through?  Does it apply to you?  If not, why not?  Do you realize how fascistic the quote above makes you and democrats look?  What does the word "liberal" mean to you, anyway?  Are you surprised that the word, and now the word "progressive" have been tainted?  

[Rebel]

Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

[BEG]

They don't see what they are turning into in front of their very own eyes.

[Rebel]

They don't see what they are turning into in front of their very own eyes.

They've always been that way. They were that way in the '60's, and they were like that in the 1910's. "Progressives" do not believe in freedom.

[sybilll]

Lurking DUers:  Do you really support this?  Have you thought it all the way through?  Does it apply to you?  If not, why not?  Do you realize how fascistic the quote above makes you and democrats look?  What does the word "liberal" mean to you, anyway?  Are you surprised that the word, and now the word "progressive" have been tainted?  

Their opinion on free speech is very fluid.  Just read the thread where some (not all) are justifying Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut".  Land of the doublestandards.  

[Rebel]

Lurking DUers:  Do you really support this?  Have you thought it all the way through?  Does it apply to you?  If not, why not?  Do you realize how fascistic the quote above makes you and democrats look?  What does the word "liberal" mean to you, anyway?  Are you surprised that the word, and now the word "progressive" have been tainted?  

They're not "liberal" in the classical sense and "progressive" is only code for Marxist.

[jukin]

Tolerance the progressive way is a boot on the throat of opposing views. 

Everyday they demonstrate how the regressives cannot compete in the arena of ideas. Their only chance to impose their failed ideology on humanity again is to lie, obfuscate, and shout down any and all ideas that make sense and have worked in the past.

Your chocolate ration has been increased from thirty grams to twenty-five grams.

1+1=POTATO.

If you do not belieeeeeeeeevvvvveeeeeee, then you are a hater or a denier.

[GOBUCKS]

mmonk  (1000+ posts)         Wed May-25-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
I don't feel modern dishonest hate speech on the radio directed at persons not available to defend themselves fits the intent for the 1st amendment.

Would that be like Fat Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut" on PMSNBC yesterday?

[BEG]

alp227 (1000+ posts)             Wed May-25-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. ironically those who believe in "original intent" don't hold that POV
   
Edited on Wed May-25-11 05:04 PM by alp227
My interpretation of the First Amendment is that it protects all speech except obscenity and violent threats.

   oh the irony 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Playinghardball (503 posts)      Wed May-25-11 01:49 PM
Original message
Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham a ‘right-wing slut’
 Source: RawReplay
By David Edwards

The liberal host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show and The Ed Schultz Show radio program may have gone too far Monday when he said that conservative radio host Laura Ingraham was a “talk slut.”

<snip>

Warpy  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-25-11 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Yeah, "skank" would have fit much better
 Perhaps that's the word he was looking for and misspoke. Or maybe he was just a Clod for a Day.

DainBramaged  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-25-11 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. GO ED GO 
 Edited on Wed May-25-11 01:55 PM by DainBramaged
Tell it like it is. I'm sure many will call for his head (because they refuse to acknowledge Republicans suck). As Republicans sit back and denigrate the President call him every name in the book, and consider us lower than whale shit, we're going to tear Ed apart.

Great. let's get rid of one of our champions.

Morality, good for us, unknown by the Right.

Nye Bevan  (1000+ posts)       Wed May-25-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
40. YES AND USE THE "N" WORD FOR BLACK CONSERVATIVES TOO
 ANY slur is fine as long as you are using it on a conservative! Right?

Good man.

Sonoman  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-25-11 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
23. What the heck, punch back Ed.
 I like this. Those ****ers ratchet up the talk and and then they whine to Mommie when it comes back a little bit harder.

Keep it up, Ed. Shove back, for they are cowards.

KnR.

Sonoman

You mother is a whore who missed a good chance to swallow the night she conceived you.

You mean like that?

JoePhilly (1000+ posts)        Wed May-25-11 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #32
59. He should say "I am sorry I called you a SLUT, I meant PROSTITUTE".
 And then add on ... "to those who were offended by my remarks, I apologize."

And then finish with ... "Oh, and none of this was meant to be a factual statement".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1171706#1171728

So apparently the vitriol from Savage isn't the real reason after all.

[Mr Mannn]

Their opinion on free speech is very fluid.  Just read the thread where some (not all) are justifying Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut".  Land of the doublestandards.  

I posted threads from DUmmyland where they gave a how-to lesson on throwing petrol bombs at people.
Dummies posted a host of threads, shuddering in orgasmic joy at the murder if an Indian corporate executive/

Savage has never advocated violence. The DUmp justifies murder, Union thuggery, and all manner of violent acts.

Liberal is just another name for hypocrisy.

[ChuckJ]

mmonk  (1000+ posts)         Wed May-25-11 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good for them.
 If we'd ban these SOB's from untruthful hateful speech pretending to be political discussion here, we might could fix our country.

It really wouldn't need fixing if not for your bunch. I just don't understand. You guys avoid productive work like a plague but don't really have a problem breaking a sweat if it comes to destroying the country. Why is that?

[Ballygrl]

Their opinion on free speech is very fluid.  Just read the thread where some (not all) are justifying Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut".  Land of the doublestandards.

Damn, I never get to be on the board at the same time you are sybilll. How ya doing?

[Carl]

They want to shut us up...I want them to tell everyone what they honestly want and believe.

Notice the difference DUmb****s.

[Rebel]

They want to shut us up...I want them to tell everyone what they honestly want and believe.

Notice the difference DUmb****s.

EXACTLY, Carl!