What are your thoughts on this? I personally think it's disgusting that he has been put on the same list as mass murderers and terrorists because of his political views. You see, this is an assault on free speech and I think Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is one of those leading this march of tyranny. Freedom is a gift and whether you're a liberal or a conservative you should not be silenced. I for one am going to boycott the UK in every way I can until they remove him from this list immediately and apologize. Again, whether you're a liberal or conservative...what they did was DEAD WRONG. Just sharing my thoughts with fellow B&Bers. Regards, Nick
Michael Savage Banned By Britain
- Thread starter Nadir M
- Start date
- Status
Can we ban him here too? 
Agreed, he is not a terrorist, and he has the right to say whatever he wants to say, given the first amendment.
However, his views on homosexuality, AIDS, and questioning if AUTISM was real or not are downright disgusting to me.
Agreed, he is not a terrorist, and he has the right to say whatever he wants to say, given the first amendment.
However, his views on homosexuality, AIDS, and questioning if AUTISM was real or not are downright disgusting to me.
This should go well. They banned him from entering their country, how is that being silenced?
Last edited:
would he want to come here anyway?
don't blame us for the goverments decisions, we live in an elected dictatorship.
as do you
don't blame us for the goverments decisions, we live in an elected dictatorship.
as do you
He can say what he wants within the confines of the USA, but I don't know why any other country would feel compelled to allow him entry if they disagree with his policies.
I lived near a Canada/USA border crossing for a couple of years and there were often US residents turned away because of a past infraction like a DWI on their driving record.
The policies of the traveler's native country have nothing to do with his or her entry into another country.
I lived near a Canada/USA border crossing for a couple of years and there were often US residents turned away because of a past infraction like a DWI on their driving record.
The policies of the traveler's native country have nothing to do with his or her entry into another country.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
The anger and hatred Savage stirs up can be likened to what Holmes was referring to in his decision. So, while extreme, I can understand Britain taking the stance they chose against him.
I am sure he is eating it up, as well as his listeners. It's another thing to hate. It's another thing to bring out their addiction to outrage. It's another country and group to add to the **** list.
It's his right to say what he wants. It's his listeners right to agree with him. It's also the British authorities right to view his vitriolic and hate driven speech as dangerous and a threat.
He hasn't been denied his right to speech in any way by this action.
The anger and hatred Savage stirs up can be likened to what Holmes was referring to in his decision. So, while extreme, I can understand Britain taking the stance they chose against him.
I am sure he is eating it up, as well as his listeners. It's another thing to hate. It's another thing to bring out their addiction to outrage. It's another country and group to add to the **** list.
It's his right to say what he wants. It's his listeners right to agree with him. It's also the British authorities right to view his vitriolic and hate driven speech as dangerous and a threat.
He hasn't been denied his right to speech in any way by this action.
.... in before the lock ....
Anyway. Personally I think it's a pretty stupid move on the British Government's part. He's not a terrorist, just somebody with a very big mouth. It's amazing how someone that makes complete, rational, common sense on a lot of issues can be so ignorant on others. How this makes him a terrorist, I don't know.
You have to remember, though, that this was the same government that attempted to ban Elvis from entering the country back in '56. They later changed their minds, but just to teach them a lesson Elvis refused to play there for the rest of his career. Maybe Michael Savage should do the same.
The US once denied entry to John Lennon on political grounds.
makes me wish Bill Hicks was still amoung us
One thing that us Americans take for granted is the first amendment in OUR bill of rights. Even though we consider Canada, U.K. and Australia to be just like us, they are not in the respect of free speech.
He's a harmless idiot...why should that warrant being put on that list with those dangerous people?
My thoughts...its a first step toward removing him from the airwaves here, and thus the precedent of the removal of others as well.
My thoughts...its a first step toward removing him from the airwaves here, and thus the precedent of the removal of others as well.
+
Can we ban him here too?
Agreed, he is not a terrorist, and he has the right to say whatever he wants to say, given the first amendment.
However, his views on homosexuality, AIDS, and questioning if AUTISM was real or not are downright disgusting to me.
=
Last edited:
His views on homosexuality and AIDS is his opinion and he is entitled to it. I also respect your opinion on it, what I don't respect is people trying to stifle opinions. He never questioned whether or not Autism is real by the way, I listened to the show that day, and his comment was spun and taken way out of context. His comment is that he believes certain things like ADD/ADHD, autism are over diagnosed in the name of ease and laziness. Mr. Savage is well versed in medical issues and his brother has a severe developmental disability.
First, no speech is free. Somebody pays for it, either the speaker or the the people listening. Second, the amendment about free speech does not supersede property rights. In other words, if you are in the US you are free to speak wherever you are allowed to be, but not in my living room. And finally, each country has it's own rules and laws. Britain does not have an amended constitution. They are free to let in, or not let into their country whoever they please. Why not test the american no-fly list against the amended constitution of the US?
Now he's talking about swine flu and how it is a terrorist plot. This is a good way to get ignorant Americans in an uproar to discriminate against Mexicans.
My partner is the parent of an autistic boy. He listened to what Savage said along with me. He agreed somewhat with his opinion, but in the intelligent way...not in the sensationalistic way Savage intended.
Savages point, if made well, was that there are services available to many disabled kids. Those services are valuable for the kids and expensive for the tax payers. To be able to utilize those services a proper diagnosis needs to be made. There are occassions where this diagnosis becomes distorted. Sometimes kids that are deserving of services dont get them because of beaurocratic red tape...in this instance many faux-diagnosis are made to deserving kids simply for the purposes of satisfying the red tape. Sometimes, parents who believe that their children could benefit from these services without legitimately needing them also obtain those faux-diagnoses.
The faux-faux-diagnoses may or may not help the child. What they do though is they cost the tax payers money and take services away from those who need them.
It is this second group that Savage was primarily addressing.
I'd happily swap him for a couple of hundred thousand others we have here.
I can listen to him for about 10 or 15 minutes, then I get OUTRAGED at him and turn him off. He has some very good things to say, but his show is all about "outrage". He's going to die of a heart attack on the air one day.
This action by the government in England(where they have no 1st amendment) just plays right into his shtick-based outrageous rise in the ratings. He's not a dummy, by any means.
He IS taken out of context quite a bit.
This action by the government in England(where they have no 1st amendment) just plays right into his shtick-based outrageous rise in the ratings. He's not a dummy, by any means.
He IS taken out of context quite a bit.
Don't quite get this.
Britain's decision to not allow him entry into the country is a step in removing infotainers from US airwaves?
I don't see why some people are getting all worked up about. This isn't a free speech issue. Brits can listen to him via the internet if they so wish. Besides, the U.S. has banned plenty of people from entering based on political views, where was/is the outrage then?
- Status