Well, I thought it was funny.

@TickTockMan,

Isnt banning racism racism against racism? Smile

@manored,

We have certain laws of incitement and racialist expressed views are illegal.If he is making comments that are deemed to infringe our laws then in my opinion he should be prevented from making those comments.
Right wing extreme views appear to be tolerated a lot more in America than even the modest socialist views.Free speech does not mean you can go around verbally abusing anyone or sections of our community just because they don't conform to your low standards.Sorry to be so serious but this guy like his friends, give me a reason to whine.

@TickTockMan,

I don't like Savage's veiws either, but I think the ban has only acheived granting him publicity. It's not as if we don't have native journalists and disc jockeys who say similar things to Savage. Chris Moyles is incredibly boorish - and incredibly popular. You don't hear so much of Richard Littlejohn these days, but he was popular a few years ago and wrote pejorative rants similar in tone and intent to Savage's views.

Having worked in close proximity to children with Asperger's Syndrome I also feel a little sympathy with some of his reported remarks - a certain proportion of parents did absolve their children of responsibility due to their condition, and these children were - by and large - 'brattier' than those whose parents drew boundaries to antisocial behaviour and taught their kids to be respectful despite the difficulty of communicating such ideals to an autistic child.

It's as if British society is full of wonderful people who have all come to an enlightened consensus of what's polite and acceptable - which isn't true. Whilst denying a forum to out and out hate-mongers who do call for death and war might seem apparently wise - when the case is borderline as with Savage or Geert Wilders it just seems the action of a nanny state who believe we are incapable of treating their (admittedly obnoxious) views with adult attitudes.

I do think there are certain limits to free speech. For example I have seen the way the Phelps family picket funerals and think something should be done to prevent that, but I also think it's OK that they have other forums to spread their message - like YouTube or whatever.

To deny such a forum altogether runs counter to what I see as admirable Voltarian standards and gives an impression that our leaders think we need to be wrapped up in cotton wool to protect us from such people's opinions.

Finally, because we have a media who love to comment on things like this, such bans actually result in great publicity for these people.

Before Spycatcher was banned no one cared, after it became a best seller.

Before Geert Wilders was banned no one knew who he was - afterwards fitna became one of the most watched films on YouTube.

Before Savage was banned no one cared - now he's all over the news.

It's just stupid.

---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 AM ----------

manored wrote:

Isnt banning racism racism against racism?

No, but it is bigotry towards bigots and intolerance of the intolerant.

I think it's poetic justice in a way - but I oppose it because I think it speaks of a wider patronising attitude.

@TickTockMan,

Michael Savage did never say anything extreme or hateful.
People who don't like what he's saying, want to censor him.

Hear Savage on CNN

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Michael Savage did never say anything extreme or hateful.
People who don't like what he's saying, want to censor him.

Hear Savage on CNN

Your extreme and others is a matter of opinion.What Ive seen heard of right wing American hosts, would be slotted into a ship slot , only for those a with demented sense of logic.A public health warning with ever broadcast.Can you point to a radio programme host that is too left for your appetite?

@xris,

xris;61995 wrote:

Your extreme and others is a matter of opinion.What Ive seen heard of right wing American hosts, would be slotted into a ship slot , only for those a with demented sense of logic.A public health warning with ever broadcast.Can you point to a radio programme host that is too left for your appetite?

Not left enough to be banned. I'm for freedom of speech don't you know.
I guarantee you that Michael Savage has never said anything creating hatred.

@EmperorNero,

USATODAY.com - MSNBC fires Michael Savage after anti-gay comments ye right, telling a homosexual he ought to get aids and die is just small talk to a right wing straight macho man like you.hurrrr yor so ard..

@xris,

xris;61998 wrote:

USATODAY.com - MSNBC fires Michael Savage after anti-gay comments ye right, telling a homosexual he ought to get aids and die is just small talk to a right wing straight macho man like you.hurrrr yor so ard..

So the Brits don't let you into the country if you once in 2003 said to someone he should die?
That guy wasn't gay btw, that was Savages producer who only said he is.

That's it? One out of context comment and you can't go to Britain. That's going to be an empty island.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

So the Brits don't let you into the country if you once in 2003 said to someone he should die?
That guy wasn't gay btw, that was Savages producer who only said he is.

That's it? One out of context comment and you can't go to Britain. That's going to be an empty island.

oh so its acceptable to tell someone to get aids and die...well well..read the link..Ide let him and then imprison him for just for being here.

@xris,

xris;62007 wrote:

oh so its acceptable to tell someone to get aids and die...well well..read the link..Ide let him and then imprison him for just for being here.

Of course it's not nice to say that.
So you really think that Britain should expel someone for having said that someone should die back in '03?

YouTube - Michael Savage Gets Fired

Actually I think it's funny. It's so ridiculous, he's just trying to shock. Having herd that are you going to kill gay people now?
I think you wanted to exterminate all conservatives, so are you going to be run out of the UK for that?

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Of course it's not nice to say that.
So you really think that Britain should expel someone for having said that someone should die back in '03?

YouTube - Michael Savage Gets Fired

Actually I think it's funny. It's so ridiculous, he's just trying to shock. Having herd that are you going to kill gay people now?
I think you wanted to exterminate all conservatives, so are you going to be run out of the UK for that?

I would not ban anyone im for free speech let them hang themselves, bit like you are.

@xris,

xris;62011 wrote:

I would not ban anyone im for free speech let them hang themselves, bit like you are.

Then we agree that Savage should not be censored by the Brits.

@TickTockMan,

Well, not being allowed here is not the same thing as censoring - oddly enough it has the opposite effect.

As I said earlier, the irony of the whole decision is that Brits are now far more aware of who the man is and the things he says than they were before Smith blacklisted him.

Which underlines how stupid the policy is. Trying to limit freedom of speech whilst allowing freedom of the press? Bearing in mind that our own press is often just a petty and provocative as Mr Savage? Ridiculous.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;62021 wrote:

Well, not being allowed here is not the same thing as censoring - oddly enough it has the opposite effect.

As I said earlier, the irony of the whole decision is that Brits are now far more aware of who the man is and the things he says than they were before Smith blacklisted him.

Which underlines how stupid the policy is. Trying to limit freedom of speech whilst allowing freedom of the press? Bearing in mind that our own press is often just a petty and provocative as Mr Savage? Ridiculous.

Yes, it's stupid, that does not make it better.
They do not allow him into the country, so he cant hold a speech, or something like that. The point is that the purpose it to suppress his opinion which is in a way censoring. Why else do it?
Also the censoring in Britain is a step towards getting Savage declared "undesired", which ultimately leads to censorship.
Many of his fans believe that the Brits got a call from Washington, as the Dems have been trying to silence Savage for a while.

Quote:

Someone in Washington with good connections to the socialist government in the U.K. made a call one day.

"Listen, you could really help us out there," that someone likely said. "We've got this talk-show host who is really poisoning the minds of the American people - saying unspeakable things about our president and other officials in Washington. Next time you put out a list of people unwelcome in the U.K., why don't you include this guy? His name is Michael Savage."

It was an easy favor for Jacqui Smith to fulfill.

Who's hunting Savage?

@xris,

xris wrote:

We have certain laws of incitement and racialist expressed views are illegal. Free speech does not mean you can go around verbally abusing anyone or sections of our community just because they don't conform to your low standards

I think in an ideal world anything that cannot be classified as auditive trash due to repetition, high noise or not making sense should be allowed. Its not like a superior view will give in to an inferior one in a clash of ideas anyway.

Dave Allen wrote:

No, but it is bigotry towards bigots and intolerance of the intolerant.

I think it's poetic justice in a way - but I oppose it because I think it speaks of a wider patronising attitude.

Certain conflicts are pointless. If someone is, for example, fanatically racist, ignoring it will probally do as much good or bad as banning it.

xris wrote:

oh so its acceptable to tell someone to get aids and die...well well..read the link..Ide let him and then imprison him for just for being here.

Its an offense, if offenses are acceptable, any offense is acceptable.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Yes, it's stupid, that does not make it better.

I'm not defending the desicion.

Quote:

They do not allow him into the country, so he cant hold a speech, or something like that. The point is that the purpose it to suppress his opinion which is in a way censoring. Why else do it?

Well, you're going to go on to answer your own question. He will get a vastly bigger UK YouTube audience than he could at a talk - he was a literal unknown here until the ban.

My personal belief is that they probably added him to the list in an attempt to pre empt criticisms about a list consisting of a large number of religious extremists, Muslims in particular, and no other shade of bigot. Having Savage on there makes them look like equal opportunity banners.

Quote:

Also the censoring in Britain is a step towards getting Savage declared "undesired", which ultimately leads to censorship.

The UK in general is less racist and homophobic now than at any time in its recorded history. Even our home-grown bigots tend not to mock gays and restrict racist comments to manipulations in the immigration debate - a hot topic as we are a crowded island.

In that respect I think telling unpleasant people not to come here is a good thing - assuming we have limited space I'd rather a poor Chinese family willing to work came here than an obnoxious rich disk jockey.

But not allowing Savage in as a visitor is a poor move, and could not have been a serious attempt to silence his message - even our current administration are not naive enough to think this thing works in the light of the Geert Wilders' film controversy.

To look at other people on the blacklist - the Phelps family - I actually think they are blacklisted for their own protection - because they simply could not sing hymns about homosexual damnation at a funeral for a british soldier without being assaulted or criminalised.

Quote:

Many of his fans believe that the Brits got a call from Washington, as the Dems have been trying to silence Savage for a while.

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. What is there to this story other than a hunch?

---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

manored wrote:

Certain conflicts are pointless. If someone is, for example, fanatically racist, ignoring it will probally do as much good or bad as banning it.

My honest preference would be that if such a person were to seek to come here to give their views that it was made the subject of a late-night TV debate like Any Questions.

This would allow adults to make their own minds up in an adult manner.

Seeing as the Any Questions panel are probably going to end up discussing Savage anyway why not hear from the man himself and get him to explain the context behind his rants?

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;62032 wrote:

I'm not defending the desicion.

Well, you're going to go on to answer your own question. He will get a vastly bigger UK YouTube audience than he could at a talk - he was a literal unknown here until the ban.

I'm not saying that you are defending the decision, just that unless you are saying that he was put on the list to boost his fame, whether it was effective is not really relevant.

Dave Allen;62032 wrote:

My personal belief is that they probably added him to the list in an attempt to pre empt criticisms about a list consisting of a large number of religious extremists, Muslims in particular, and no other shade of bigot.

What's wrong with banning only violent criminals? There were some from every bent there, muslims, isrelis, russian skinheads, and that anti-gay nut-job preacher.
Who is going to be outraged over banning them?

I rather suggest the they put a few violent criminals on that list to make the Savage ban less of a story.

Why only Savage? Is there really nobody else in the world who the Brts don't like as much as Savage? As far as I can tell, the worst think he ever said is telling a guy he thought was gay to die.
On other occasions he had long conversations with gays and noted that he has gay friends. He does not hate gays, he is politically opposed to some things.

Dave Allen;62032 wrote:

The UK in general is less racist and homophobic now than at any time in its recorded history. Even our home-grown bigots tend not to mock gays and restrict racist comments to manipulations in the immigration debate - a hot topic as we are a crowded island.

In that respect I think telling unpleasant people not to come here is a good thing - rather a Chinese worker came here than a disk jockey.

But not allowing Savage in could not have been an attempt to silence his message - even our current administration are not naive enough to think this thing works in the light of Geert Wilders' film.

To look at other people on the blacklist - the Phelps family - I actually think they are blacklisted for their own protection - because they simply could not sing hymns about homosexual damnation at a funeral for a british soldier without being assaulted or criminalised.

If you don't consider arab supremacist hatred racism. What problems were there in the UK with mocking gays? And you call that a bigger problem than muslims preaching violence?

Jump three minutes in.
Rusty Humphries - Muslim hatred

EmperorNero wrote:

Many of his fans believe that the Brits got a call from Washington, as the Dems have been trying to silence Savage for a while.

Dave Allen;62032 wrote:
Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. What is there to this story other than a hunch?

Why should the Brits ban a guy that most Europeans never heard of? Now he is mentioned in the news all over the world. If they had a problem with him, this is, as you noted, the worst thing they could do. Why grant him publicity?
They didn't put a bunch of other right-wing commentators on that list, only a few criminals, accordingly the headline is always "Savage banned from Britain". That is what remains in the memory of Americans. Don't you think that is a step towards finally getting him off the air here. Which is attempted about once every six months for some invented scandal.

@TickTockMan,

You're putting an awful lot of words into my mouth and ascribing arguments to me that I have not made and would never support. For example, I never said that I thought mocking homosexuals was worse than Muslim hate speech. Where do you get that from? I see no intrinsic difference between wishing death on homosexuals or wishing death on Israelis or wishing death on Palastinians. Where on earth do you dig these straw men out from?

Why only Savage? It's not only Savage. He is one of twenty or so people on the list, and in my eyes he's not the most deserving of blackballing.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;62039 wrote:

You're putting an awful lot of words into my mouth and ascribing arguments to me that I have not made and would never support. For example, I never said that I thought mocking homosexuals was worse than Muslim hate speech. Where do you get that from? I see no intrinsic difference between wishing death on homosexuals or wishing death on Israelis or wishing death on Palastinians. Where on earth do you dig these straw men out from?

Why only Savage? It's not only Savage. He is one of twenty or so people on the list, and in my eyes he's not the most deserving of blackballing.

I apologize. You were saying that the UK is less racist and homophobic now than at any time in its recorded history. And it is more racist and homophobic than ever.

It was a list of 16 people. Most of whom are vile mass murderers, then there is that anti-gay preacher, who I dislike because he protests at fallen soldiers funerals. If they wanted to get Savage in the headlines, how to better do it?
The Brits have nothing to gain, unless you think that they are so incompetent that they just didn't anticipate this backfiring. That's what his enemies in America always wanted.

Philosophy Forum

Well, I thought it was funny.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know