About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Savage says Muslims, others should be banned from US, but he's "going to sue" UK for banning him

May 06, 2009 5:38 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Michael Savage is outraged and says he is "going to sue" U.K. Home Office Secretary Jacqui Smith over the decision to ban him from entering the U.K. -- but Savage himself has repeatedly called for people to be banned or deported from the U.S.

88 Comments

During the May 5 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, responding to the British Home Office's decision to ban him from entering the United Kingdom for "stirring-up hatred" -- specifically, "engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence" -- Michael Savage claimed that "I am going to sue" Home Office Secretary Jacqui Smith. Later, Savage stated: "This lunatic Jacqui Smith, in my opinion, has defamed me, and if possible, I will sue her personally." Savage himself has a history of calling for the deportation or banning of individuals and groups from the United States. For example:

  • On the August 14, 2008, edition of his radio show, Savage stated that "minorities in America are becoming the majority" and "[t]he only way to stop this is to throw out all the politicians, immediately, and then throw out the anchor babies." He added: "You know, this thing about the anchor babies is why minorities in America will become the majority. Most people will be afraid to discuss this for fear that the radical scum on the left will call them a racist."
  • During the March 31, 2008, edition of his radio show, Savage stated: "If I had the power by executive order, I would round up every member of the ACLU and of the National Lawyers Guild, and I'd put them in a prison in Guantánamo and I'd throw the key away. Or I would reopen Devil's Island and I'd put everyone in the ACLU into -- onto Devil's Island." He added, "But, you see, I fantasize. That's one of my flaws is I live in a fantasy land that can never be." Devil's Island is a former French penal colony off the coast of French Guiana.
  • In March 2007, The Minnesota Independent's Robin Marty wrote that after she reported that six Muslim imams who were removed from a US Airways flight had filed a discrimination lawsuit against the airline, she received an email from Savage which stated, "You and they should be deported for taking advantage of this great nation."
  • During his October 29, 2007, program, Savage reportedly said of Islam and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): "What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need re-education. They need deportation. I don't need re-education. Deportation, not re-education. You can take C-A-I-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it." After CAIR posted audio of Savage's statements on their website, Savage sued the group for copyright infringement. The suit was dismissed in federal district court.
  • On the November, 27, 2006, edition of his show, Savage stated that in order to "save the United States," lawmakers should institute an "outright ban on Muslim immigration" into the United States.

From the May 5 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: Well, I don't know who this pork-eater is, but I have a question for her. I hear she's the home secretary of the former England. When has this witch heard my show, since it is not syndicated in England? When has this witch listened my program in England, and which show or shows is this witch referring to?

Now, I will say this, that when I awoke this morning in the 7 o'clock range and went down to my computer; I turned on various websites. I go to The Drudge Report because it is the newspaper of today amongst anyone with a brain; you know that and I know that. And it has some great, you know, linkages.

I was shocked and I thought I was seeing things when it said Michael Savage banned in England. Am I seeing -- so the first thing I thought was darn, there goes the summer trip to receive their -- their dental care. And I'm going to have to give up a summer trip where I was going to do a tour of British restaurants for their famous cuisine. But then it dawned on me who they had linked me with; I thought this is a joke or a mistake. They linked me up with Russian skinheads who had murdered 10 people, Islamists who had smashed in the heads of Jewish children with rifle butts, preachers in the UK who call for the destruction and overthrow of the government.

How could they put Michael Savage in the same league with mass murderers when I have never avowed violence? Had I avowed violence, I wouldn't be on the radio. I wouldn't have lasted 15 minutes, let alone 15 years. In fact, my opinions are more in keeping with the mainstream of America than you would like to believe. I am closer to the heartland of America than is, let us say, this woman. I want to remind you, though, that the whole point of the First Amendment, which we enjoy in America and apparently these Brits do not enjoy, is to protect offensive speech, not polite speech.

Let me repeat that. The whole point of the First Amendment was to protect offensive speech, not polite speech.

And I want to remind you liberals: Whatever happened to your famous sayings from the '60's, "I may disagree with you but I will fight to the death your right to say it"? Now I suggest that my 8 to 10 million listeners cancel your trips to England immediately and tell your travel agents why. I suggest you stop buying English-made goods. I don't know what they make anymore, but whatever they make, I suggest you don't buy anymore. If they want to play hardball, we'll play hardball. Will they ban my listeners from attending -- going to their wonderful, great nation as well? I mean, I've been banned from Britain. I mean, I hadn't planned on going there; I haven't been there in over 25 years. And when I woke up this morning, I thought this can't be true. But the point is today it's me, tomorrow it's someone else.

And my second reaction was the land of the Magna Carta has now become the land of the Mini-Carta. They published 16 of the 22 names of those banned from England since October, but they didn't include six additional names, right? Now, I'd like to know who it is who put together this list. I'd like to know which six names are not being published. I'd like to know why they have not banned, for example, Kim Jong Il the third -- the second, who allegedly has starved over a million of his fellow countrymen to death.

Is Kim Jong Il banned from England? What about Chavez, Hugo Chavez? Is he banned from England? He has driven half the Jews out of his nation with his hate talk. Is he banned by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith? No, she picked an easy target. She doesn't know my show, obviously, but someone in America sent her my name, and as a result of this, I'm going to sue her. I don't know if I can win; I don't know the laws of England. I have seven lawyers working on this right now.

Britain defamed Michael Savage, putting me in a league with mass murderers because of my opinions. For this lunatic Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary of England, to link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia; to put me in a league with Hamas murderers who killed Jews on buses, is defamation. Moreover, I've been endangered by this lunatic. She has painted a target on my back, linking me with people who are imprisoned for killing people.

Does she not think that this will bring harm to me, and if she does, will she pay for it? We'll find out soon enough what the laws of England protect and don't protect. But even liberals listening to this show should be disturbed at the move by the British Government because they wonder -- they should wonder who's next. Today it's me, tomorrow it's you. And I have to say to you that this is -- some ways, people are saying, "Savage, it's a badge of honor. Savage, it's a good thing to be on this list. Savage, this is a last gasp of a troubled Labor Party that is out of touch with the voters of England." According to the most recent surveys, Labor and highly unpopular Prime Minister Gordon Brown are expected to be swept from power by conservatives at their next general election. That's all well and good, but will the conservatives undo the damage that this lunatic has done? We'll have to wait and see.

The Home Office of England said that I was banned because I am engaging in unacceptable behavior. Behavior? How is it behavior for me to publish books? Now, I thought about this, and it could be that my latest book, Psychological Nudity, on the cover of which you see Michael Savage and my 10-pound dog, Teddy, it could be that One-Armed Frank, or Fat Al's tuna, or Dead Man's pants, or Woodchuck Bill, or Love By the Sewer Plant -- it could be that one of those stories is offensive to those in England. I really don't know.

I do know this: that I've written many best-sellers. But prior to my political life, I had written about 18 books in the field of health that were well received as well. Perhaps they're out of touch with the English today. Perhaps my books on vitamins and nutrition are considered a threat to the social order in England. Some would say, "Savage, don't be so upset. It's gonna help the sales of Psychological Nudity."

Well, OK, great. Go on to MichaelSavage.com and buy a copy and tell them to send it to a friend in England, and tell them to walk around with it proudly. Do me a favor. It's not gonna change my lifestyle.

[...]

SAVAGE: This lunatic Jacqui Smith, in my opinion, has defamed me, and if possible, I will sue her personally.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by SDL (May 06, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
      2  
      I'm gonna sue Weiner. I was listening to the replay of his show today while I was out and I was laughing so hard, I almost lost control of my car and I may have pulled a few rib muscles from the laughing. I'm gonna sue him for causing my sides to hurt!

      Defamation? I'd say it's DEFINITION of character!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (May 06, 2009 6:02 pm ET)
      2  
      Righties love to crow about frivolous lawsuits until something hits a nerve.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by deeznuts (May 06, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
        4  
        You watch. When this blows over, he'll go back to wanting people banned or expelled from the US.

        The complete lack of self-awareness exhibited by wingnuts knows NO bounds.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (May 06, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
          3  
          He sure does drive home the point about right wing double standards, eh?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (May 06, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
            2 1
            Sue? Our morning paper said he made snarky comments not worrying about missing English health care and cuisine. Guess the ban really did get under his skin after all, poor baby.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by neon desert (May 06, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
              2  
              I'm all about snarky comments. And his comments regarding British dentists and culinary exploits would have been humorous to me... had he ended it there.

              As it is, he carried the issue way too far, and those comments - rather than being humorous jabs back at the Brits - seem to be actually meant to "hurt" them, and give the impression (probably accurate) that the savageweiner is really just a thavagewhiner.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Christopher Howard (May 07, 2009 8:55 am ET)
                1  
                "comments regarding British dentists and culinary exploits would have been humorous to me..."

                Really? Going after the Brits for those two things are two of the most tired cliches in the book, and any humor that they may once have had is long gone through overuse. Savage's wit is as rapier sharp as a marshmallow.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 07, 2009 7:53 am ET)
          2  
          The complete lack of self-awareness exhibited by wingnuts knows NO bounds.

          Few greater truths have ever been spoken.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Floyd (May 07, 2009 9:10 am ET)
        1 1
        Yeah, those frivolous lawsuits over silly things like defamation + unsubstanciated lies really hit those nerves. I noticed that Miss Smith came out with no examples of his "inciting hatred and violence". Aren't actual examples usually required to prove a statement?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (May 09, 2009 10:42 am ET)
             
          Guess you didn't read the Media Matters article again, Floyd; too busy thinking up stuff to post on here? They gave just a few examples of Weiner's negativity and hate-filled diatribes.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (May 06, 2009 6:53 pm ET)
      3 1
      I love the "she defamed Michael Savage" line. Uh. Does he think he should be sued every time he defames someone? Everytime he compares Obama to Hitler for example?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (May 06, 2009 7:02 pm ET)
        4 1
        Besides, how is Micael Savageweiner going to prove he's been damaged in a defamation suit, when all the evidence points toward his parents as the culprits?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 07, 2009 7:58 am ET)
          2 1
          He's a public figure in the US... Thus he can't sue for defamation; in the US anyway. It's different in Britain, but not beign a subject, I'm guessing he'll have no standing to sue, and that the courts there will not even hear his case. (Since he even can't enter the country, how will he appear in court? LOL. Now do see why we, in the US, try to limit gov't's POWER as opposed to just Gov't's SPECNDING?! LOL.) One thing I find is that the people that cry the most about tort reform understand very little about how the law actually works.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (May 07, 2009 12:12 pm ET)
               
            NGE,

            Public figures in the U.S. can sue for defamation, the standard is just higher. Under NY Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, the statement must have been published knowing it was false or with reckless disregard to its truth.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 07, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
              1 1
              And even with that, Larry Flynt won his case with Jerry Falwell by using the old right-wing excuse, he was only joking. Parody was ruled a valid defense in his case.

              Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 07, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
              1  
              I appreciate the correction. Good stuff. BUT: that case wouldn't apply to the actions of a foreign state. Plus it's nigh impossible to proove that someone's opinion is false. We're all entitled to our opinions, after all.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by carojoy (May 06, 2009 8:47 pm ET)
        2  
        That's what gets the good doc's panties in a twist, that it was a woman who brought the ban against him. His hatred of females, and gay people too, is clearer and clearer every time I stumble upon his show.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dave2150 (May 06, 2009 10:49 pm ET)
            5
          please name an example of his hatred to females
          Report Abuse
          • Author by budrykzp9226 (May 07, 2009 12:48 am ET)
            3 1
            "Women should be denied the vote... their hormones rage, they are too emotional."
            Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 07, 2009 8:35 am ET)
            1  
            After that, YOU can give all the evidence YOU can site that the world is round.

            Sometimes the truth is just the truth, and just needs to be accepted, otherwise you just look like an idiot.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by dave2150 (May 06, 2009 10:38 pm ET)
          4
        when did he compared obama to hitler? name one example please
        Report Abuse
        • Author by postrero (May 07, 2009 2:22 am ET)
            5
          No! These offenses are subconscious feelings that liberals have and wish could be said without having to go down for them. The fact is many libs are returning home.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by harley (May 07, 2009 8:09 am ET)
          2  
          Michael Savage likens Obama to Hitler
          Report Abuse
        • Author by BillJ-MN (May 07, 2009 8:55 am ET)
          2 1
          please name an example of his hatred to females - dave2150

          I tried posting this as a reply to the post where you made the above statement, but my quotes from Weiner wouldn't make it past the MMFA profanity filter and now it won't let me reply directly to that post. I'll try again here.

          Speaking of an MSNBC reporter he said "Turn on MSNBC and you'll find the mind-sl-- with a big pair of glasses that they sent to Afghanistan. She looks like she went from porno into reporting. See, when they get over forty they go into news."

          He said the "U.S. Senate is "more vicious and more histrionic than ever, specifically because women have been injected into" it.

          He referred to the Million Mom March as the Million Dy-- March.

          When talking about student volunteers who were distributing food to the homeless, he said that "the girls from Branson [school] can go in and maybe get raped... because they seem to like the excitement of it. There's always the thrill and possibility they'll be raped in a dumpster while giving out a turkey sandwich"

          He claimed that "any heterosexual woman today over the age of 25 who grew up in America is basically a dominatrix."

          Speaking of Hillary Clinton, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor, he said they have "feminized and homosexualized much of America, to the point where the nation has become passive, receptive and masochistic."

          There's more, but I think this makes the point. None of those statements have a factual basis. They aren't based on the actions of those of whom he is speaking. They are all entirely gender-based. And they reek of hatred.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by BoboSoetoro (May 06, 2009 7:09 pm ET)
      1 3
      Savage isn't going to sue for the UK "banning him", as Media Matter incorrectly asserts.

      He is going to sue for having been defamed under British law.

      Home Secretary Smith put in writing that Savage has "inspired others to commit crimes". Unless she can cite a specific criminal act that Savage inspired the offender to commit (and she can't), she clearly defamed him.

      Savage has a slam-dunk case against her.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by RABBITLUVR (May 07, 2009 10:39 am ET)
        2 1
        Oh sure. And I'll bet that this 'case' will end up just like the one he had with CAIR - in the rubbish bin.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 07, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
        1 1
        Savage has a slam-dunk case against her.

        You're almost correct, for once. If he tries to go to England, Weiner will be slam-dunked back to the US.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mattcable250650 (May 06, 2009 8:19 pm ET)
      1 1
      I completely agree with some liberal commenters I've read who think Britain's banning of Savage is a bad idea (Far better to mock him and expose him), but yeah, given that, Savage's outrage and clear set of double standards is absolutely hilarious!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by carojoy (May 06, 2009 8:45 pm ET)
      2 2
      Would the good doc have so many New York Times Best Sellers if it weren't for his hate-monger listeners. Frankly, I don't think Savage-Weiner is a good writer or story teller at all. But 8-10 million brainwashed listeners can't be all bad... or can they?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by my4cents (May 06, 2009 9:36 pm ET)
        4 1
        20-30% of American population has been brainwashed beyond repair. You tell them any Republican talking point and they will believe.

        Does not matter who tells them, Savage, Rush, Hannity, Levin or any right wing talk radio host.

        I am confident that even I can cater to their addiction to let them hear what they they want to hear, logic, reality, facts, truth be damned. I don't want to because I do not live in AM talk radio Fox News world for making a living.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (May 06, 2009 10:14 pm ET)
        2 1
        "But 8-10 million brainwashed listeners can't be all bad... or can they?"

        Whether Rush or Savage would ever agree to this or not... but I get the feeling that the 8-10 million listeners of Mike's are part of the 15-18 million of Rush's...?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dave2150 (May 06, 2009 10:56 pm ET)
          1 3
          actually they are not . you see , mike is an independent conservative who never stopped bashing bush .
          but i guess its easier to tag him to another rush or hannity .
          Report Abuse
          • Author by harley (May 07, 2009 8:06 am ET)
            2 1
            mike is an independent conservative who never stopped bashing bush

            Prove it. Please cite your examples.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DAWUSS (May 07, 2009 9:16 am ET)
              2  
              Savage would flip-flop when it came to Bush - one minute he would be the greatest ever, the next he was the worst ever.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by dave2150 (May 06, 2009 10:52 pm ET)
          2
        so if i get this right , "8-10 million brainwashed listeners " are not human , not worthy of any statistic regarding to his book success.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by princeofwheels (May 07, 2009 12:30 am ET)
          2 1
          Aren't the 8-10 million the total number of listeners that this "poor victim Mikey" has for the week? The same 2 million day after day? Isn't that how they count them?
          And Mikey and the Leader of the Repubs do have the same listeners.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by JamesCraven (May 06, 2009 9:35 pm ET)
      2 1
      Weinersavage's lawsuit in England will have about as much of a chance being heard as Derby County winning two games in the Premier League two seasons ago. (They only won one game all year.)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by elle n uk (May 06, 2009 9:39 pm ET)
      3 1
      Bravo Jacqui. You've made the Weiner whine. And I'd be honored if Mr Savage really could keep his listeners home in the US.

      Isn't it funny - hate mongers and revisionist always cry about their perceived loss of 1st amendment rights - that they can't say what they want to say. But they conveniently leave out the Point of the actual law. Yes, in Germany and a dozen other countries, it Is illegal to deny the Holocaust -- IF in so denying, the denier incites hate and/or efforts to rebuild the Nazi party.

      Actually, people can say whatever they want here in the UK - and no one wins libel law suits. Just look at what goes down in Parliament every day? But that doesn't mean you have a right to inflame hate or people to commit hate-filled crimes.

      I think Mr Savage has finally found his niche, is in with the appropriate company.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by my4cents (May 06, 2009 9:45 pm ET)
        1
      "In fact, my opinions are more in keeping with the mainstream of America than you would like to believe. I am closer to the heartland of America than is, let us say, this woman."

      Read the above. Why would / should 'this woman' give a rats a$s about his self perceived closeness to the heartland of USA, when she is British?

      (I was going to write a sentence that Bin Laden could have said with equal righteousness but decided to refrain myself)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by postrero (May 06, 2009 10:16 pm ET)
      1 4
      Seeing how many liberals have commented on this thread seems to be the intention of Savage's show. He obviously has more liberal listeners than conservatives. LOL!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (May 06, 2009 10:31 pm ET)
        2 2
        Um, posterioro,

        there's also the possibility - however remote it might seem to you - that so-called "liberals" commented on this thread because they read {drumroll} . . . {cymbal crash} . . . the Media Matters article on the subject . . .
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dave2150 (May 06, 2009 10:42 pm ET)
          1 3
          so you're saying mediamatter is partisan , liberal , reflecting left wing views instead of being objective?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by princeofwheels (May 07, 2009 12:24 am ET)
            3 1
            Read the mission statement and figure it out for yourself. Then come back with your own answer.
            Are you the Inquisition Director here? Do you think your question is fair because.... 1. You are uninformed or 2. You are informed and want to play gotcha games.

            P.S. If MMFA is partisan, TOO BAD. And what definition of objective are you speaking about?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Alone in Texas (May 06, 2009 10:31 pm ET)
      3 1
      Do not forget that it was Savage who stated that the Brits are cowards after we did not fight Iran following the capture of our sailors a few months ago; Savage stated that the sailors should have fought to the death and should not have surrendered. With friends like Wiener, who needs enemies, for if you did not have any to begin with, he would make sure that you had plenty of enemies following his inciteful hate filled ranting.

      You do not have to incite violence directly to actually be "de facto" promoting it through others, and this is exactly what Savage does while he hides behind a microphone and his lawyers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dave2150 (May 06, 2009 10:45 pm ET)
      2 5
      savage is a jerk no doubt
      however , Britain has become a very soft , week degenerate country
      there is not a week without reading about 12 yer. old kids with babies , kids drugged to death , kids getting married , woman flushed her baby in the toilet and list goes on and on .
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Alone in Texas (May 06, 2009 10:49 pm ET)
        5 2
        lol, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.....
        Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (May 07, 2009 8:05 am ET)
        4 1
        I'm just another typical, week, degenerate American but if you just add over 1,400 gun shot injuries per week, you could be describing the United States.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by duckfan76 (May 06, 2009 10:53 pm ET)
      2 2
      This is VERY worrysome to me.

      Yes, Savage is Harsh, brash, and filled with sarcaism. But its clear that a GOVERNMENT has choosen to exclude a specific person based on thoughts and beliefs. Not actions he has been tried and convicted for against a rule of law. He didnt get to plead his case, defend himself, or make a argument.

      Yes, he is opposed to gays. Yes, he is against illegal immigration, yes he differs from majority opinion on medicine. But its his thoughts and beliefs. If people dont like it or dont agree, DONT LISTEN.

      However, a GOVERNMENT has said we are banning you. Why take the stand with him? Is Kim Jong Il permitted to come? What are these "standards" for getting a ban? Why him? They have made him more powerful for putting just his name on the list.

      The point is not Michael Savage, but the process of how they did this. All these posts are about not liking Savage and his points of view. Great, have your beliefs and be thankful you can express them without being labeled yourself. As that all Savage has done. We may disagree, but they are just thoughts.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dave2150 (May 06, 2009 11:01 pm ET)
        2 3
        cant agree with you more
        i as a democrat always hear for cons about big government , power grabbers etc. to e honest that would be a living example for this argument.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Alone in Texas (May 06, 2009 11:08 pm ET)
        2 1
        But unfortunately they are more than thoughts, they can incite violence and certainly promote hatred. You cannot accuse the UK of not having freedom of speech.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dave2150 (May 06, 2009 11:28 pm ET)
          1 2
          how about banning Iran leader and Korea's kim jong mentally ill first . i think that would be a healthy priority .
          and please think about it before you instinctively comment about you're beloved Britain
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Alone in Texas (May 06, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
            1 1
            I have not read anywhere that this is a definitive list; did the US not recently allow the President of Iran to enter the US to address the UN? Who is instinctively commenting?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by dave2150 (May 06, 2009 11:57 pm ET)
              1 2
              yes the us let this garbage to enter to to address the un and spew his lies in a university (cant remember the name )
              but 1. it doesn't make it right 2. the us did not banned any radio talk show hosts or any person who is a radical...
              as far as i know bill Ayers is still spreading his propaganda
              while enjoying his status as professor - what a shame
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Alone in Texas (May 07, 2009 12:05 am ET)
                2  
                Did not the US ban Charlie Chaplin from returning to the US?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by duckfan76 (May 07, 2009 12:29 am ET)
                  1 2
                  I will trust your history is right as I dont know the answer. But your using a different time to make your point of two wrongs = ?????

                  Cant Britian learn from mistakes of the past???
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by princeofwheels (May 07, 2009 12:37 am ET)
                    2 1
                    I hope Mikey "the Victim" Savage never returns to England. That'll show them.
                    Can he really be this stupid to fall into this trap? He is carrying on like a child. Does he really believe that America will stand behind him and his silly lawsuit. Once again, Mikey the Victim, be a man and never return to that country. Go visit Iran or something like that and try the same thing. I'll be that don't ban you from returning. Show those Brits a thing or two.
                    And Mikey, you are as bad as Hannity, Rush and the rest of the shepards by trying to use your TeaBaggers to fight for you.
                    Maybe the Brits are just trying to get your sheep to send them 1 million tea bags. Damn VERMIN.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Alone in Texas (May 07, 2009 12:48 am ET)
                    3 1
                    There is no point in further replying specifically to your points, you regretably seem to be clouded in your views regarding Britain and it is a pointless argument. I never stated that I agreed or not with the principle of the ban, nor did I indulge in US bashing; on the contrary, the US is a great nation that has its nutters like we all do. We all learn (or not) from the mistakes of the past, both our nations, no excepetions.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by benjr (May 07, 2009 1:52 am ET)
                      3 1
                      A Brit in Texas: I totally agree with you. I'm not really sure what dave is trying to say. The reasons why Savage was banned seem reasonable to me. He ' "stirring-up hatred" -- specifically, "engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence" '. Whether or not you agree with that statement, it is a reasonable and thoughtful rationale for an action.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Alone in Texas (May 07, 2009 10:22 am ET)
                        2 1
                        Thanks Benjr, good reasoning. Like you, I do not know what dave is trying to say and I certainly do not wish to engage in a character debate between the US and Britain - no one will win that argument and besides, it is pointless.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by duckfan76 (May 07, 2009 12:03 pm ET)
                          1
                        Just curious, who decided on these standards? And which law did he violate? And when did he get a chance to depend his actions?

                        I respect your opinion that you agree with with the decision. But Im asking if you agree because you dislike Savage.

                        Its the process that is flawed. I respect your opinion.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (May 07, 2009 11:12 pm ET)
                          2 1
                          What law did Cat Stevens violate? Who decided on that standard when did HE get a chance to defend himself?
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by nickrizza (May 07, 2009 12:51 am ET)
                  3 1
                  Apparently it did, but more recent was the Reagann administration's banning of several people from entry into the USA, including a Canadian author and an Italian general.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by rkallen09 (May 07, 2009 1:05 am ET)
                     
                  Not quite true. He wasn't banned from the United States in any formal kind of way.

                  If memory serves me right, he was actually in London for a movie premier when Hoover negotiated with INS to deny him re-entry or something along those lines. He heard of the actions by Hoover and chose not to come back and stayed in Europe. The only time he ever returned to the U.S. was to recieve an honorary Academy award in 1972.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 07, 2009 11:10 pm ET)
                1  
                You are a NUT Cat Stevens HELLO, CAT STEVENS
                Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (May 07, 2009 10:45 am ET)
            1  
            Uh, if you read the complete story about this list you will learn that it is NOT a complete list. Several names were not publically released so it is likely that those two may be on the COMPLETE list.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by postrero (May 07, 2009 2:14 am ET)
          1 2
          And hollywood does not incite violence? The very same people that call for peace are the ones that make violent movies! We give emmy awards to rappers and praise them for their talent when they just finished a cd that incites killing cops. Anything can be inciteful when it is taken out of context my friend.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 07, 2009 7:22 am ET)
               
            Have you been asleep for the last 30 years? Your ambiguous "examples" suggest so.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 07, 2009 11:08 pm ET)
        2  
        Two words

        CAT STEVENS.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by postrero (May 07, 2009 2:18 am ET)
        3
      So once again, Michael Savage has caught the attention of his admirers and enemies. He incites people to violence and should be silenced because his views are not consistent with the so called moderate view of the majority.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 07, 2009 7:23 am ET)
        1 1
        Actually, England did not call for Weiner to be silenced, and neither did anyone else with the power to do so. They just don't want him in their country. Maybe he could broadcast from a pirate station off the coast somewhere.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by postrero (May 07, 2009 2:18 am ET)
        2
      So once again, Michael Savage has caught the attention of his admirers and enemies. He incites people to violence and should be silenced because his views are not consistent with the so called moderate view of the majority.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Metoikos (May 07, 2009 2:37 am ET)
      3 1
      My God, in four-plus decades on this sorry planet, I never thought I'd come across a man who could best be described as a "Jewish Goebbels." But, there he is, and I suppose that if you live long enough, you'll see everything. "Savage" is such a blatant fraud, bottom-feeder, and provocateur that even his NAME is fraudulent!

      I'm not in favor of censorship in any form, but a boycott of his sponsors might be in order. There are certain people who only understand being chastised via their wallets.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (May 07, 2009 4:27 am ET)
        3 1
        Censorship is a government suppressing free speech. Savage is not Constitutionally guaranteed a show. So if his network boots him, it's not censorship. It's GOOD TASTE.

        Randy
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (May 07, 2009 4:25 am ET)
      2 1
      Who says a country must welcome with open arms every yahoo who encroaches? Heck, laws, by definition, are man made. So the Wiener Man should just chalk this up as a matter of taste. But could the Brits please do something about Benny Hill. That was embarrassing, but not as embarrassing as the right wing demagogues here in the States. When will Clear Channel do the correct thing and send these babbling ciphers packing?

      Randy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Netram (May 07, 2009 6:38 am ET)
      2 1
      I'm a gay man. I'm a Democrat. Voted for Obama. I am for the free dissemination of opinion whether I agree with it or not. Savage is an idiot. But even idiots have a right to free speech as provided by our Constitution. I can take him calling me names. What I can't stand is people trying to crush his right to do it.

      The main definition of Incite is "to urge (someone) to do something. He incited the people to rebel against the king.

      He is not in any way telling people to go out and commit violence. In fact he does the exact opposite. To compare him to terrorists and mass murderers is ridiculous.

      The ACLU and other civil libertarians have come out in defense of Savage's right to speak his mind against the ban. Are you going to bash the very organizations and individuals that back you guys up 100% when the time is needed? You give them glowing reviews. Now what? Are they Commies and hate monger supporters?

      The ACLU is 100% of the time all about defending the Bill of Rights. Are you going to bash them and the Bill of Rights. You guys walk a slippery path of being the thought police. 1984? It makes me sick.

      Britain's ban of Savage decried by detractors
      San Fran Chronicle
      May 5, 2009
      'Weapon of censorship'

      Civil libertarians say the move illustrates the increasing willingness of countries, including the United States, to "use their borders as a weapon of censorship," said Jameel Jaffer, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

      In March, more than 70 organizations, including the ACLU, signed a letter asking Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to end "ideological exclusion," described as "refusing visas to foreign scholars, writers, artists and activists not on the basis of their actions but on the basis of their ideas, political views and associations."

      While civil libertarians say the practice intensified after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, it recalls Cold War fears when people like Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, a communist, was kept out of the United States. The letter cited people who been barred from entering the United States, including Adam Habib, a South African professor and human rights activist, Rafael de Jesus Gallego Romero, a Colombian priest who is a critic of his government, and Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss national who is a professor at the University of Oxford and described as a leading Islamic thinker. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

      "While some of these people may express views that others find disagreeable, often the cure is worse than the disease," Jaffer said. "It also deprives the citizens of that country of their ability to hear dissenting views."




      US radio shock jock Michael Savage brands Jacqui Smith a 'witch' over UK banned list
      "The media lawyer Mark Stephens, of the London law firm Finers Stephens Innocent, warned Mr Savage could receive as much as £200,000 in damages if he won.

      He added: "He would seem to have a very good case. The people on the list who have been banned are supposed to be advocating extreme violence and so to put him into that category is clearly defamatory.

      "His views, such as those on homosexuals, may be offensive but that is another thing entirely. The Home Secretary appears not to have appreciated the difference between tolerance and defamation."


      Report Abuse
      • Author by Alone in Texas (May 07, 2009 10:34 am ET)
        2 1
        I do not believe that anyone is arguing that Savage has a right to free speech; we will differ on your opinion of inciting violence however. One point you seem to miss is that you are talking about rights in the US for US citizens, Savage is not a UK citizen (as far as I am aware), and no one is taking away his rights to free speech here or there (anyone can access his web site in the UK), the UK Government is saying that they do not want him there.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Alone in Texas (May 07, 2009 10:36 am ET)
          2 1
          should read: "I do not believe that anyone is arguing that Savage does not have a right to free speech"
          Report Abuse
      • Author by duckfan76 (May 07, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
           
        Very well said!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by didi (May 07, 2009 8:45 am ET)
      1 1
      At least the UK knows hate speech when they hear it. People in this country seem to be tone deaf to it.

      It's become so accepted that it's blatant on TV and radio.

      What ever happened to the days when people like Weiner were relegated to late night talk shows with a "lets laugh at the freaks" theme?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (May 07, 2009 8:54 am ET)
      2 1
      How did his lawsuit against CAIR go again?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 07, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
        1 1
        It went about as well as O'Reilly's suit against Franken.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Shadibadoo (May 07, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
      2 1
      Eventually we're going to have to realize that freedom of speech is much too vague a principle to invoke or protect. Speech is the principle way people influence one another; it's the means through which good and evil movements begin; it starts wars and pogroms. Recognizing that hate-speech is a dangerous phenomenon is a great step in the right direction. It actually DOES encourage violence.

      Michael Savage tells Americans that their way of life is threatened, that their nation is being ruled by an evil order of perverts, that democracy and family values are being destroyed by imposters who've stolen power and oppress the people. He projects no hope for nonviolent action, no hope for western civilization. The only way we can succeed and defend our holy superior culture is through DRASTIC, DRACONIAN action, and the government won't do it for you....

      All of that together, night after night, mixed with charismatic stories and fatherly chiding, is the exact recipe for violent extremism. If you were a true believer in Michael Savage's world, you'd be a paranoid, angry, and armed.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Freword (May 07, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
        1
      Savage should ban because of hate he talked about
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace