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

[Bill3000]

Told you we agree.

Never said we didn't, I just needed to clarify further.

You're right, my bad. He is against any non-european immigration, not only mexican:

By contrast, there's plenty of far right-wingers in Europe who do want to ban immigrants of all kinds. And besides, as I said before, having offensive views isn't enough to justify the restriction of speech.

Now granted, Savage is a flaming hypocrite because all he is really doing is whining that his views views are being repressed, not really different from many other far right-wingers, but that's still not a justification to restrict his rights to free speech!

 

[emzie]

In order to have a liberal society, there needs to be complete liberty to espouse the views of any doctrine, no matter how immoral it is. The only legitimate restriction on free speech is to prevent harm to others. It's an application of the harm principle. The only times speech harm others is when the speech directly causes harm to others, such as inciting a riot, death threats, harassment, et cetera. Banning speech which is merely offensive isn't a legitimate excuse.

If all of humanity except one person had one opinion, and the other person had the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing the person's speech than if that person had the power to silence the rest of humanity's opinion.

Oh, I agree, with everything you've said as it applies to how I wish my society to be. Free speech is necessary for a liberal society to function. Just because a liberal society works for us but that doesn't make it objectively correct. It is no more correct for me to say liberalism is right and how, say, China organizes society is wrong, than the inverse.

 

[Bill3000]

Oh, I agree, with everything you've said as it applies to how I wish my society to be. Free speech is necessary for a liberal society to function. Just because a liberal society works for us but that doesn't make it objectively correct. It is no more correct for me to say liberalism is right and how, say, China organizes society is wrong, than the inverse.

Moral relativism.

You do realize that it's possible to tolerate illiberal societies while believing that they ought to become a liberal society on their own, right? You don't need to become a neocon and force liberalism on others through war to universalize liberal ideals.

There's no reason why a liberal society should work for us and not work for other people. Other people are still human and have the capability to be convinced that a liberal society is the best one. And guess how you are able to convince them? Free speech!

And regardless, you said that everything I said should apply to what you think your society should be. You're in Canada. Canada is a liberal democracy. So you should support what I said in your own country! And presumably you ought to support the same liberal ideas in other liberal democracies. If you support the rights of women, the least you can do is believe that woman's rights should be applicable in all countries that claim to be liberal democracies! The same applies to something as fundamental as free speech. Germany's interpretations of free speech is wrong, and they ought to change it, but I'm not going to force the change upon them.

 

[Phlegmak]

To those who love to quote Benjamin Franklin, for any purpose:

"Fart proudly." -- Benjamin Franklin.

 

[Mise]

Bill, the UK isn't suppressing Savage's right to say those things -- he can say them all he wants in America. Britain is denying him a visitor's visa, which it does on a regular basis to people from all over the world, for all sorts of reasons; from past criminal convictions, to incorrectly filled out application forms, to a suspicion that the applicant will stay for longer than his visa will permit. This is not a rights issue, it's a visa issue; you haven't yet explained why the UK must approve his application for a visitor's visa.

 

[Bill3000]

Bill, the UK isn't suppressing Savage's right to say those things -- he can say them all he wants in America. Britain is denying him a visitor's visa, which it does on a regular basis to people from all over the world, for all sorts of reasons; from past criminal convictions, to incorrectly filled out application forms, to a suspicion that the applicant will stay for longer than his visa will permit. This is not a rights issue, it's a visa issue; you haven't yet explained why the UK must approve his application for a visitor's visa.

'cuz I believe that human rights, including free speech, ought to apply to everyone regardless of citizenship. Savage has as much right to go to the UK as Ahmadinejad did to go to the US to speak at Columbia University.

 

[Mise]

Again, this isn't about free speech, this is about the denial of a visa application -- unless you believe that the approval of one's visa application is a fundamental human right.

 

[tycoonist]

for me, many of you are approaching this in the wrong way. instead of saying "why shouldn't he be let in?", we should be saying "why should he be let in?"

he has nothing to bring to the uk apart from racism and hate. and we have enough of that as it is, thank you very much. if he wanted to come to the uk for tourist purposes, then i would have no problem with letting him in. but given that he would probably want to come to the uk to talk on shows etc., i think its completely fair.

 

[mrt144]

It's a bit irksome to have a foreigner tell you how to run your country.

So when are you going to shut up about how the U.S. is run, you dirty Canadian turncoat.

 

[lovett]

And again I never said the UK was doing anthing illegal, it is the fact that it is legal that is the joke.

Actually, from what you've said so far, it's pretty clear that you have no problem with the law in question. Perversely, it seems your confused about what your actually arguing.

To whit:

'Fail. You have still not provided one shred of proof even remotely showing anything he said is inciting violence.'

Pretty clearly if this evidence is provided you'd think it was find to ban him. You haven't made any argument against the justification for banning people on the grounds of incitement, rather you've questioned that Mr.Savage will incite violence. Your not laughing at the law, your laughing at the Government omitting their 'sources'.

I don't really care about the bloke enough to research whether he does regularly
incite violence, but other people seem too, and have given links and quotations. Hopefully the government has similiar lists and expert projections on the effects of his speech. I don't know if they have published these anywhere. Nor do you. Regardless, they can be uncovered in court if necessary. And incidentally, where's your outrage at the lack of citation for the other 21 people who are refused entry?

'cuz I believe that human rights, including free speech, ought to apply to everyone regardless of citizenship. Savage has as much right to go to the UK as Ahmadinejad did to go to the US to speak at Columbia University.

It' an admirable idea, but one absolutely no nation on Earth shares. Every single state restricts the freedoms of people who don't constitute their citizenry. On the most basic level freedom of movement: I can't think of a single developed nation without immigration control and border restrictions. The US is particularly repressive in this regard. People who visit other countries aren't given a say about the laws they must operate under. That includes things like substance consumption or bearing arms. And it goes without saying that almost all positive rights are denied to foreigners.

This practically defines what it is to be a nation state.

 

[Neomega]

If it were US law, the ACLU would have come to his defense. LoL

 

[potatokiosk]

In order to have a liberal society, there needs to be complete liberty to espouse the views of any doctrine, no matter how immoral it is. The only legitimate restriction on free speech is to prevent harm to others. It's an application of the harm principle. The only times speech harm others is when the speech directly causes harm to others, such as inciting a riot, death threats, harassment, et cetera. Banning speech which is merely offensive isn't a legitimate excuse.

I don't see how aggressive hate speech promotes a liberal society. Bigotry encourages people to do things that infringe on other people's rights.

 

[mrt144]

If it were US law, the ACLU would have come to his defense. LoL

And no doubt they would. ACLU is pretty great that way.

 

[Bill3000]

It' an admirable idea, but one absolutely no nation on Earth shares. Every single state restricts the freedoms of people who don't constitute their citizenry. On the most basic level freedom of movement: I can't think of a single developed nation without immigration control and border restrictions. The US is particularly repressive in this regard. People who visit other countries aren't given a say about the laws they must operate under. That includes things like substance consumption or bearing arms. And it goes without saying that almost all positive rights are denied to foreigners.

Sure, but does Savage do drugs, plan to carry arms to the UK, or care much about welfare to foreigners? No, he doesn't. This specific justification - "likely to cause harm" - is a bunk one. There are people with opinions worse than him who don't cause violence by simply espousing those opinions. None of the examples gave are actual incitements of violence. Just merely part of the moronic hyperbole that is talk show radio.

I don't see how aggressive hate speech promotes a liberal society. Bigotry encourages people to do things that infringe on other people's rights.

The focal point you are placing is on the people speaking, not the harm done. Banning speech for the good of a particular speaker undermines the entire point of free speech in the first place.

Full freedom of expression is required to push our arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. It is necessary for the dignity of people. It's not that hate speech promotes a liberal society, it's that it's necessary for one. We need those opinions out in the open air so people will realize that they are wrong.

Bigotry will exist whether you suppress the speech or not. The state cannot control thought or control the circumstances in which people become bigoted. A society which has the political will to ban hate speech has the social will to shun it effectively and make it irrelevent. We have done this in the United States, you can do it in other countries.

It's also not effective. The United Kingdom has managed to shun the BNP without a need to ban the party. The US has no genuine political outlet for white nationalists. On the other hand, countries which has banned hate speech of some sort in Europe tend to have a record in which those far right groups go into power. Austria is a good example of this.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Again, this isn't about free speech, this is about the denial of a visa application -- unless you believe that the approval of one's visa application is a fundamental human right.

This.

/endthread

 

[potatokiosk]

The focal point you are placing is on the people speaking, not the harm done. Banning speech for the good of a particular speaker undermines the entire point of free speech in the first place.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here; it's banning an extreme form of speech because it indirectly leads to violence.

Full freedom of expression is required to push our arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. It is necessary for the dignity of people. It's not that hate speech promotes a liberal society, it's that it's necessary for one. We need those opinions out in the open air so people will realize that they are wrong.

In practice I don't see why we need to let someone openly advocate the intentional killing of 100 million people in order for us to realize why it's wrong to commit genocide.

Bigotry will exist whether you suppress the speech or not. The state cannot control thought or control the circumstances in which people become bigoted. A society which has the political will to ban hate speech has the social will to shun it effectively and make it irrelevent. We have done this in the United States, you can do it in other countries.

Society in general might reject it but not every member of society does. It only takes a few riled up bigots for violence to occur.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, this isn't about free speech, this is about the denial of a visa application -- unless you believe that the approval of one's visa application is a fundamental human right.

That's like trying to say the Civil War wasn't really about slavery. Savage is clearly being denied entry due to his outspoken views. You can't get much more "about free speech" than that.

 

[holy king]

Again, this isn't about free speech, this is about the denial of a visa application -- unless you believe that the approval of one's visa application is a fundamental human right.

werent we there at page one?

 

[Arwon]

I didn't think Americans needed a visa to enter the UK?

I suppose it's good the guy found out he wasn't allowed in the county now, rather than at Heathrow.

 

[Mise]

That's like trying to say the Civil War wasn't really about slavery. Savage is clearly being denied entry due to his outspoken views. You can't get much more "about free speech" than that.

Mike Savage is free to say whatever he wants -- the British government will not stop him.

werent we there at page one?

I dunno, maybe

I didn't think Americans needed a visa to enter the UK?

They have to fill in a visa waiver form, IIRC -- which of course can be denied. I've never been in that situation, obviously, so I'm not too sure, but the agreement is not intended to allow any American into the country for any reason, it's simply intended to make it easier for Americans to visit, by not having to jump through as many hoops. American felons, for example, will probably have their waiver (and visa) denied.

We used to have a reciprocal relationship with the US, whereby a British citizen can enter the US without a visa, and vice versa, but the US abolished it from their end, so that it's no longer reciprocal. And now they're moaning when we won't let them in...