Savage banned from UK for.........

[tycoonist]

And so are many thousands of other Americans who come to your country every year. Do you want to ban them all or just him in particular?

no, just the ones that hateful, racist, homophobic, bigoted and sexist.

If what I say is true? Which remark of mine are you referring?

you misread me: i wasn't referring to you. i should have written "i am all for freedom of speech, so long as what one says is true"

I'm not sure where you got that quote from, and I wouldn't go so far as to say that 99% of all of them are merely brats, but a sizeable number certainly are. History is not going to be kind to the needless drugging of millions of "problem" schoolchildren with very dangerous substances merely to make it easier to control them.

picked it up on his wikipedia entry. and he didn't address "problem kids", he addressed the autistic. there is genetic evidence for the presence of autism in a child: he is effectively calling the disabled "brats". this is someone i would not like to be around. autism isn't just a problem, it is a severe disorder - caused by genetic mutations and not by kids being brats. if you had ever talked to someone with autism, you would surely understand.

 

[Bill3000]

no, just the ones that hateful, racist, homophobic, bigoted and sexist.

You're not even trying to hide behind the "inciting hatred" excuse, are you?

You don't care one iota for freedom of speech. You can't ban speech merely because it offends you. As I said before, that ruins the point of freedom of speech in the first place. Using your own logic, why shouldn't a Muslim ban blasphemy of his religion? Why shouldn't a christian ban homosexual-friendly speech? Why shouldn't I ban your post for offending my sensibilities towards liberty?

Mere offense is a nonsensical standard.

 

[tycoonist]

You're not even trying to hide behind the "inciting hatred" excuse, are you?

You don't care one iota for freedom of speech. You can't ban speech merely because it offends you. As I said before, that ruins the point of freedom of speech in the first place. Using your own logic, why shouldn't a Muslim ban blasphemy of his religion? Why shouldn't a christian ban homosexual-friendly speech? Why shouldn't I ban your post for offending my sensibilities towards liberty?

Mere offense is a nonsensical standard.

equality transcends liberty

 

[Bill3000]

equality transcends liberty

I CAN MAKE NONSENSICAL SLOGANS TOO

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

If you want equality, go live in Zimbabwe and wallow in poverty with the rest of the population.

You live in a liberal democracy. In a democracy you need as many opinions as possible in order to function, because you can't have an informed opinion if you are merely told that an opinion is wrong. You can't do that by banning speech that you disagree with. Michael Savage is harmless. He may say some incredibly nasty stuff that I will vomit at, but assuming you're not a masochist, if you're offended by what he says, you will not listen to him. He's not harassing people. He's not inciting actual harm. He is not in any way shape or form reducing an ability for an egalitarian society. He merely makes himself look foolish so you and others can see that he's an idiot. Ostracism is best when it is voluntary. You manage to not put the BNP in power merely by shunning it - you can damn well ignore an irrelevant American talk show host.

 

[PeteAtoms]

The only answer to offensive speech – if we are to preserve our traditional way of debate and discourse in this country – is a fully open marketplace of ideas in which hate speech is rejected on its own demerits, rather than censored by a benevolent big brother or sister.

Bill is correct, censoring people's opinions or banning Savage from entering the UK is not the way to solve the problem of hate speech or whatever it is that you feel is offensive.

 

[Cutlass]

The only answer to offensive speech – if we are to preserve our traditional way of debate and discourse in this country – is a fully open marketplace of ideas in which hate speech is rejected on its own demerits, rather than censored by a benevolent big brother or sister.

Bill is correct, censoring people's opinions or banning Savage from entering the UK is not the way to solve the problem of hate speech or whatever it is that you feel is offensive.

Banning Savage may not accomplish anything.... but it's funny.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

He'd get sacked immediately if he did his thing on the radio in the UK.

 

[aelf]

What is so surprising about the fact that one principle must be balanced by another? While free speech is fine and dandy, there comes a point where certain speech has to be curtailed in order to uphold other principles that also define a progressive democracy.

While it's nice and optimistic to assume that people won't buy bad ideas, the truth is they often do. Bad ideas may have an impact, and they often do. Given that there are some issues about different cultures and integration in the UK and Europe in general, I'm hardly surprised that the government and the public do not want to have a troublesome demagogue on their hands.

 

[Bill3000]

He'd get sacked immediately if he did his thing on the radio in the UK.

Right. Sacked.

Not banned.

While it's nice and optimistic to assume that people won't buy bad ideas, the truth is they often do. Bad ideas may have an impact, and they often do. Given that there are some issues about different cultures and integration in the UK and Europe in general, I'm hardly surprised that the government and the public do not want to have a troublesome demagogue on their hands.

Oh please. A country that has the political will to ban extremist speech, has the social will to have shun it. It really shouldn't take much to start a movement against this kind of crap. We managed to shun white supremacists perfectly well here in the US. There's no way that it can be that much harder in the United Kingdom or any country in Europe.

Hell, it's even worse in Europe, because all extremists need to do is to be a little less vitriolic in their speeches and they can be elected anyway by frustrated populations. And this has happened. The best way to combat extremism is to let those views out in the open so people can see it and be disgusted by the truth. If your country is screwed enough that you need to censor speech in order to prevent extremism, then your country isn't mature enough to be a liberal democracy in the first place.

 

[Dachs]

When the Nazis came for the American radio talk show hosts, I remained silent; I was not an American radio talk show host.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

When the Nazis annexed Poland, we did nothing, we were Americans.

 

[Dachs]

When the Nazis annexed Poland, we did nothing, we were Americans.

They didn't call it the Sitzkrieg for nothing, if you want to play the blame game. And America wasn't even allied to Poland, unlike a certain other two countries.

 

[Cutlass]

When the Nazis came for American talk radio hosts, they gave them medals and slaps on the back and told them to keep up the good work....

 

[Bill3000]

When the Nazis came for American talk radio hosts, they gave them medals and slaps on the back and told them to keep up the good work....

We get it, talk radio hosts suck and are often extremist nutjobs. I agree. You know that they still have a right to have their opinion. There's no need to gloat over this.

 

[aelf]

Oh please. A country that has the political will to ban extremist speech, has the social will to have shun it. It really shouldn't take much to start a movement against this kind of crap. We managed to shun white supremacists perfectly well here in the US. There's no way that it can be that much harder in the United Kingdom or any country in Europe.

This would be a case of focusing on the macro side and forgetting about the micro. While it's true that extremists are not likely to gain a large foothold in the country, increased violence and discrimination towards certain groups on a small scale shouldn't be overlooked. That's just ethics.

By the way, small things can end up having greater ramifications. Powder keg and all that.

Hell, it's even worse in Europe, because all extremists need to do is to be a little less vitriolic in their speeches and they can be elected anyway by frustrated populations. And this has happened. The best way to combat extremism is to let those views out in the open so people can see it and be disgusted by the truth. If your country is screwed enough that you need to censor speech in order to prevent extremism, then your country isn't mature enough to be a liberal democracy in the first place.

Things are never that simple in the real world. There's no such thing as "do this and that would certainly be achieved". In some cases, there is a net benefit in curtailing speech. If there is, I say go for it. What is the point of policy and legislation if not to further the public good?

 

[Cutlass]

We get it, talk radio hosts suck and are often extremist nutjobs. I agree. You know that they still have a right to have their opinion. There's no need to gloat over this.

Banning Savage may not accomplish anything.... but it's funny.

ok, I admit it. I'm enjoying this

 

[.Shane.]

When the Nazis annexed Poland, we did nothing, we were Americans.

Yeah, and when they remilitizaried, quit the League of Nations, reanned the Saar, took over Austria, and took the Sudenetland, what did Europe do? Declared "Peace in our Time". I agree, way more effective than the American approach.

And when they were making a post-WWI peace treaty, who stuck it to the Germans?

--
--

As for this whole Savage thing. He's now reaping what he's being sowing all along. As I said before, where is the OP's indignation when we deny people entrance to the US for nothing more than thoughtcrime? Nowhere to be seen, of course, because he saves his righteous indignation for his guys only. When the person is a Muslim, or a liberal or whatever-the-OP-disapproves of I bet the response is "DAMN RIGHT KEEP OUT OF THE USA"

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Pornography is by definition speech. It's protected by the first amendment here. Freedom of Speech isn't merely about words spoken, it's all forms of expression.

And no, it doesn't protect people from exploitation. It's consensual. Most "extreme pornography" is fake, anyway.

The act you referred to makes exceptions for both consensual and fake extreme pornography, and only covers stuff involving death, serious injury, corpses or animals. I'd much sooner leap to the defense of the corpse than the guy humping it. The UK has messed up laws involving the degree of injury people are deemed able to consent to, but in this case it's explitly limited to severe injury to the anus, breasts or genitals. I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Yeekim]

I did not bother to read 18 pages, but has there been a Johnny English reference already?

Spoiler :

 

[bathsheba666]

When the Nazis came for the American radio talk show hosts, I remained silent; I was not an American radio talk show host.

Well, it appears the american radio talk show hosts are the nazis, and the english government is coming for them.