fair or over reachin?

[actsnoblemartin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30575687/?GT1=43001

LONDON - Britain for the first time has published a list of people barred from entering the country for what the government says is fostering extremism or hatred.

The list includes popular American talk-radio host Michael Savage, who has called the Muslim holy book, the Quran, a "book of hate." Savage also has enraged parents of children with autism by saying in most cases it's "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out."

[Joe Steel]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30575687/?GT1=43001

LONDON - Britain for the first time has published a list of people barred from entering the country for what the government says is fostering extremism or hatred.

The list includes popular American talk-radio host Michael Savage, who has called the Muslim holy book, the Quran, a "book of hate." Savage also has enraged parents of children with autism by saying in most cases it's "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out."

Long overdue.

Savage and all the rest of the media hate-mongers should be banned from any public speech. They've shown themselves to be enemies of the public good and should be prevented from damaging it any further than they already have.

[Insein]

And who is in charge of deciding who is declared as hate speech? Right now its left wingers that follow your ideology. What happens when people with the opposite ideology as your own get in there and use the precedents set by those of your political persuasion to ban you from public speech?

[hjmick]

Long overdue.

Savage and all the rest of the media hate-mongers should be banned from any public speech. They've shown themselves to be enemies of the public good and should be prevented from damaging it any further than they already have.


"Fostering extremism or hatred."

I guess that means Joe would be barred from entering Great Britain as he is obviously fostering hatred for those with opposing views.

[Joe Steel]

And who is in charge of deciding who is declared as hate speech? Right now its left wingers that follow your ideology. What happens when people with the opposite ideology as your own get in there and use the precedents set by those of your political persuasion to ban you from public speech?

The truth will be known. Even in a conservative era, the public will be able to decide what is true and what is hate.

[AFbombloader]

The truth will be known. Even in a conservative era, the public will be able to decide what is true and what is hate.

The first amendment gives any of us the right to say as we please. You have the right to spew your vitriol just the same as Mike Savage. And you are correct, the public will decide by changing the station or ignoring those who we don't want to hear. As for the list, who cares what the people of Britain think. It has no affect on us here.

[red states rule]

Long overdue.

Savage and all the rest of the media hate-mongers should be banned from any public speech. They've shown themselves to be enemies of the public good and should be prevented from damaging it any further than they already have.

Apparently to the likes of you, smearing and banning people based on what they think and say - not what they do - is OK.

Why has not Jeremiah Wright, and Jeaneane Garofalo been banned, and the rest of the far-left hate-mongers who wanted GWB executed or assassinated and said so?

I don't know which is more scarier, Michael Savage's freedom of speech being attacked, or the people on this thread that thinks it's ok.

[Joe Steel]

The first amendment gives any of us the right to say as we please.

In fact, it doesn't. It says Congress can't make a law abridging the right of speech. Courts can, and do, abridge speech all the time with no First Amendment problems.[/QUOTE]

[Joe Steel]

Apparently to the likes of you, smearing and banning people based on what they think and say - not what they do - is OK.

Savage and other media hate-mongers have developed methods of spreading provocative and inflammatory speech to huge audiences. That doesn't serve the public. Wright and Garofalo have made incidental, provocative comments but not on the scale of Savage, et. al. and without the intention of inflaming their listeners.

[red states rule]

Savage and other media hate-mongers have developed methods of spreading provocative and inflammatory speech to huge audiences. That doesn't serve the public. Wright and Garofalo have made incidental, provocative comments but not on the scale of Savage, et. al. and without the intention of inflaming their listeners.

Incidental? You are showing your double standards again Joe

It's very bizarre to see people on here exercising their freedom of speech, and happy about another human being's freedom being infringed upon

[Joe Steel]

Incidental? You are showing your double standards again Joe

It's very bizarre to see people on here exercising their freedom of speech, and happy about another human being's freedom being infringed upon

Yes. Incidental.

Wright and Garofalo might say something provocative in a substantive discussion of some issue. Savage et. al. make provocative comments deliberately because they intend to enflame their audiences. No community should have to put-up with that. It's the first step toward inciting a riot.

[red states rule]

Yes. Incidental.

Wright and Garofalo might say something provocative in a substantive discussion of some issue. Savage et. al. make provocative comments deliberately because they intend to enflame their audiences. No community should have to put-up with that. It's the first step toward inciting a riot.

Translation - I support liberal free speech, but conservative speech must be slienced

I am not surprised you would go along with people who have a different POV having their rights taken away

What is next with you Joe - having conservatives be required to wear some kind of insignia? Like the Jews had to wear in Germany?

[Insein]

Yes. Incidental.

Wright and Garofalo might say something provocative in a substantive discussion of some issue. Savage et. al. make provocative comments deliberately because they intend to enflame their audiences. No community should have to put-up with that. It's the first step toward inciting a riot.

Kind of like yelling "swine flu" in a crowded country?

[AFbombloader]

In fact, it doesn't. It says Congress can't make a law abridging the right of speech. Courts can, and do, abridge speech all the time with no First Amendment problems.[/QUOTE]

What is says is that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Nowhere did I say anything about the courts. I said the first amendment allows you to say whatever drivel you want to say. The first amendment gives you the freedom of speech, but there may be repercussions to that speech and there are responsibilities that go along with it. I am not making this a partisan issue, just stating that Mr. Savage has the right to say his drivel the same as you have to say yours.

AF

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont support michael savage, but free speech is a part of our constitution and we shouldnt pick and choose which parts of our constitution we should follow.

bottom line: let the man say what he wants to say, and organize a protest

[Psychoblues]

5

timed out for non-pb. got another 5 chances, just to prove our open venue. Stop with the sigs. Voice your real feelings or stances. If not bye.

[Joe Steel]

Nowhere did I say anything about the courts.[/QUOTE]

No, you didn't but you should have.

Courts can abridge your right of speech and the First Amendment can't stop them from doing it.

[Insein]

Nowhere did I say anything about the courts.
No, you didn't but you should have.

Courts can abridge your right of speech and the First Amendment can't stop them from doing it.

The first ammendment still applies even when a court sets a precedent. A court decision is not law. If a court decision violates a persons free speech, eventually that case will rise to the Supreme court where they are supposed to uphold the constitution above all else. First Ammendment is universal to all people of this great nation and no court or law shall infringe upon it.

Unfortunately, government is infringing upon it already with Hate speech laws. We have laws that punish people for bringing physical harm to others. We have laws that punish people for defaming another. We have laws against disorderly conduct. We have laws to cover almost every situation that a hate speech crime could apply to and yet they have created laws that say if a person "says" something that offends someone else, it is hate speech. Its a dangerous time we live in.

[5stringJeff]

Long overdue.

Savage and all the rest of the media hate-mongers should be banned from any public speech. They've shown themselves to be enemies of the public good and should be prevented from damaging it any further than they already have.

Wow. Why am I not surprised that you want to take away people's rights based on political ideology?

[Joe Steel]

Wow. Why am I not surprised that you want to take away people's rights based on political ideology?

You shouldn't be. Rights are created by political ideology. The US political tradition protects political speech but not hate speech.

[Kathianne]

You shouldn't be. Rights are created by political ideology. The US political tradition protects political speech but not hate speech.

Seems to me you are advocating speech for those that say what you agree with. Not 'free speech.'