Michael Savage – host of the self-titled “most exciting radio talk show” – is a truly hateful, despicable little man. With the possible exception of Jim Sessions, he’s the closest America has to an avowed & public white supremacist (prime example: “Slave reparations?! I’ve been paying slavery reparations for years, in the form of higher crime rates!!!”).
That said, just this once, I’ll join WorldNetDaily in condemning the United Kingdom for, apparently, banning Savage from ever entering the country. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy, even though it requires us to put up with truly hateful men like Savage. After all, the best cure for Savage’s Inquisition-era philosophy is listening to it.
Advertisement
FYI: Savage was on Talk of the Nation on NPR today. I’ve never heard the man before, but wow…I can see why he raises so many hackles.
Posted by James F | May 5, 2009, 10:35 pmDUDE. He was on Talk of the Nation!??! WIN!
Posted by ACG | May 5, 2009, 11:57 pmThe thing to bear in mind – the UK ban *sixteen* named people from entering the country because of extremist views likely to cause public disorder, and Savage is one of them. His words haven’t been banned, but he’s not welcome.
Meanwhile, the US will automatically ban you if you were arrested for smoking a joint ten years ago.
Posted by Steve Atone | May 6, 2009, 6:45 ami agree with steve.
has the u.k. banned access to internet broadcasts of savage’s show?
entry visas are a privilege not a right.
Posted by didionsmommy | May 6, 2009, 7:51 amAmes,
I respect your desire to protect free speech as a concept – heck if it didn’t exist you and I wouldn’t have blog to pour our hearts and souls into. But you’re off base here friend. As DM correctly points out, entry into a country form outside is a priviledge, and while the U.S. and U.K. share many legal and historical connections, they have a different take on speakers then we do. The ideas can flow freely across borders, but the people cannot.
Posted by Philip H. | May 6, 2009, 7:58 amIt’s definitely true that entry into a country is a privilege, and not a right. My concern is that the privilege is being administered and withheld arbitrarily. Obviously England isn’t bound to follow American law & legal thought on this point, but failing to do so definitely sends a message that the speaker is disfavored, threatening to chill related speech. His ideas can cross into the UK via the internet, sure, but the harm isn’t to Savage, it’s to the quality of public debate.
Posted by ACG | May 6, 2009, 9:30 ami’m still not so sure.
british readers can still purchase savage’s books. they still have access to his broadcasts.
barring him entry to the country definitely sends a message about what great britain’s political tastes du jour are, but i don’t see the chilling effect.
bbc is reporting on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8035114.stm
again, g.b. citizens have access to savage’s position. if anything, the action is spurring public debate. and don’t think for one minute that savage isn’t loving every nanosecond of this.
that said, i think the u.s. was really stupid for denying a visa to iranian film director abbas kiarostami in 2002.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/02/opinion/barring-the-gate-to-a-great-director.html
Posted by didionsmommy | May 6, 2009, 10:29 amThe concern is that speakers generally want to be on the side of the state, or at least within the range of permissible dialogue. By banning Savage, the UK sends the message that his viewpoints are not within the range of permissible discussion, and risks halting any debate on the subject.
Posted by ACG | May 6, 2009, 10:58 ami can see that. i don’t think it will happen among savage’s ilk, but i can see it happening in other areas … academic, perhaps … maybe some people will unconsciously begin to frame their speech/scholarship in certain ways … speaking of which …
(don’t want to open up this can, but hasn’t this been an ongoing issue on university campuses (politically correct speech, etc.) for the last nearly two decades? is it still going on?)
but i think it is telling the british press is on top of this … i linked bbc earlier … here’s the times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6233105.ece
Posted by didionsmommy | May 6, 2009, 1:24 pmJust as a curiosity, does Britain also exhile their own citizens for similar things? If so, then I see Savage being banned as fair. If not, I can’t help but wonder if exhile for British citizens is the logical next step for a policy like this.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | May 6, 2009, 3:18 pmDM, yeah, the harm is more abstract than real. In that sense, quick reaction by other members of British politics will completely negate any prospective harm. Good point :).
And Mike, yeah, I don’t think they do do the same to their own. Which is at once better and worse, isn’t it?
Posted by ACG | May 6, 2009, 4:00 pmAs for Savage’s comment on slavery, it’s lacking in some respects. He forgot to mention welfare. It’s amazing that when someone speaks out of the politically correct norm, he has some politically correct label put on him. A perfect way to try to shut people up. Just call him a racist. Or, he needs to be more compassionate. The liberal way of being compassionate and politically correct has led to people being afraid to let their children play outdoors. They don’t even talk to their neighbors anymore. They hide in their expensive castles and count their money. Their jobs are being sent to countries that they can’t even pronounce the names. Their children are on drugs. Their marriages are dissolving and they are in therapy. They kill babies at an unprecedented rate. They drive foreign cars and talk about how bad America is. Well, liberals, you got what you deserve. As the pope once said, “liberalism will lead to the destruction of the world”. Enjoy.
Posted by Savagedefender | May 27, 2009, 4:38 am