Banned from the UK

Cat Stevens, TSA paging a Mr. Cat Stevens…. Cat Stevens?I say let the Brits ban whom they choose. Has Mr Savage considered an appeal to his status?John Lennon, Immigration paging Mr. John Lennon…. John Lennon?

Bah, at least someone is making a statement. I don’t have a problem with him being banned; he’s a detriment to society.

i don’t know exactly what i think about this. freedom of speech is one thing but what savage and others on that list do go beyond freedom of speech. why can’t i yell bomb on a plane? why could i be arrested for saying i am planning on killing someone? there’s a line being crossed with them. they are preying on weak minds, planting negativity that could lead to the harm of others. but then…if those crazy people were in power they would do the same to us. i don’t know…just don’t know…

While I think the UK was wrong for barring entry for Mr. Savage, I nevertheless enjoyed Savage’s very brief visit to NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” yesterday.Host Neal Conan gave Savage a Smack Down™, it begins at about 6:40 in.

I’m gonna have to agree with the Brits here. Savage belongs in a padded room, and it’s acceptable to ban banana-waving lunatics from your citizenry.Every country has the right to prevent people from entering. Hell here in the states its all “give me your educated, your affluent, your landed European gentry yearning to stamp on smaller people.”

Let me clarify:I think Savage should be allowed to enter GB as a tourist.But I agree with others that what Savage practices often crosses the line into hate speech.If the Brits relent and decide to let him in, the minute he starts any hate speech, they should arrest his ass and deport him.Preferable to Afghanistan.

There is no right to free speech in the United Kingdom. They have laws which explicitly ban hate speech and speech which incites violence. Savage’s diatribes violate those laws.Regardless of whether or not you agree with those laws, the U.K. has every right to enforce their laws in their sovereign nation.I personally think we should have similar laws here. I don’t consider incitement to violence as we have been getting from Beck, Limbaugh, and Savage to be any different from yelling fire in a crowded theater.Savage is a dangerous and vicious ideologue who exhibits blatant disregard for the safety of others. I applaud the U.K. for showing excellent judgment in keeping fascists out of their country.

>>>I personally think we should have similar laws here.So a future Republican government might sanction me for speaking out against them?

Britain has the right to refuse entry to people they consider undesirable. We Americans aren’t citizens of the UK and have no guaranteed right to enter their country.We don’t grant visas to people we deem undesirable.

>>>>>So a future Republican government might sanction me for speaking out against them?One would hope that we can prevent politicalization of the DoJ better than we did during BushCo.I hope that the widows of the police officers killed in Pittsburgh bring civil action against Beck and Limbaugh.I have never heard you say anything that could even remotely be construed as inciting violence, but I have dozens of samples of such speech from the aforementioned parties.I am more alarmed that you think the U.K. should not enforce their own laws when they conflict with our own. Are they not entitled to have whatever laws they decide? Or should we demand they be just like us? Who does this sound like?

Fred Phelps, too. They banned Fred Phelps (altho, I think we knew that before yesterday).Any way WE can ban Fred Phelps??

I partially agree, but on the other hand we really have no place telling other countries how to act at this point. It will be some years before we’ve fully reestablished our credability.

An aspect of this story which worries me is how Michael Savage is already spinning this situation. Apparently he has hired a lawyer to look into his legal rights, etc. He is going to sell this as the big, bad UK infringing upon his rights of free speech, and will milk it for all it is worth. The fact that Savage is a hatemongering douchebag of the highest order will get lost in all the other loud noises.Apparently Savage wasn’t even trying to go the UK, so I don’t know why they felt the need to release this information.

Not knowing all details about this action, I guess I shouldn’t jump in too fast. But I am willing to bet that Savage HAS broken a few laws, but has for some unknown reason been allowed to continue his disgusting tirades. My personal feeling is that he should be banned from just about everywhere. – especially a radio studio.

How is this different than our No Fly List? We ban people from within and without our country, because of what they say, and how they look, and who they worship, etc.

1. The right to free speech has never been a part of the UK constitutional law base.2. They are banning him for inciting hate speech, which is currently outlawed in the UK, much like hate crimes will soon be here.please don’t try to project the US constitution onto the UK. they are not constrained or guided by it

The UK has laws that are different then ours.We have NO RIGHT to demand that they have any of our citizens visit them.We have NO RIGHT to demand they have laws like ours.The only reason I am sorry that they banned Mr. Savage is because we need respite from his nasty, racist horrible screed.He is a disgrace to the human race. Why would anybody want him.

God save the queen.Her fascist regime!

Fascism is banned and fascists are not allowed in the U.K.Expect Lush Rimjob and Glenn Beck to get their names added to the banned list because this is going to be the new dick waving measuring stick for the right wing. You won’t be right wing enough unless you’ve been banned from Britain.This is a publicity stunt like the Banned in Boston was for books and films.I expect to hear “Banned from Britain” at regular intervals from the mad dogs of the wrong wing.

Here’s the problem with radio today… when I was in radio, I had to be careful not to let anything questionable slip out of my mouth. When I ran the board for Stern in my market, I couldn’t even let the word “fart” on the air without hitting the delay.Meanwhile, Michael Savage can say this:”Madeleine Albright should be tried for treason, and when she is found guilty, she should be hung.”"The children’s minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia”"gay parenting is child abuse.”"The radical homosexual agenda threatens your very survival”"civil rights is a con… It’s a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males’ birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn’t qualify for it.”And nothing comes of it. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want the called pulled off the air by the government, but this kind of stuff is FAR more offensive than anything Don Imus said… where’s the outrage?

*guy, not called… don’t know what the hell made me type “called.”

There is no question that the laws in the UK are different from ours. That doesn’t preclude us from saying what we think they should be, however.In the same of free speech, I encourage the UK to reconsider and let that nutbag, er, pundit visit their country. In fact, I encourage them to over him UK citizenship and a permanent home there.

Sorry, but no compassion for the weenie. the UK is a souveriegn country and as such, has the right to roll up the mat to those it deems unfit to enter her. Not that mike savage was ever planning to go there to spew his nonsense. Downing Street has enuff on its plate keeping their own breed of nutters in check as it is. Besides, he should be lucky that he got a headsup than find out the hard way upon touchdown at Heathrow Airport.

I wonder what prompted him to be put on the list. As its pointed out Limpy isn’t on it.I hope our Gov respond to that guys stupid ‘I have first ammendment rights’ to a country that doesn’t have the first ammendment, with a statement saying why he was actually put on the list. Believe me, that dopey Jackie Smith has enough on her plate, I dont think she has time to be trolling US websites looking for people to ban just for a laugh.

Ps Bob, technically he did break laws; British Laws.He didn’t break any American Laws which is why he’s allowed in your country Although, if he wears a t-shirt with a picture of a gun on it, he may find he cant fly in your ‘free’ country too.

Bob & Git – Lend an ear to the nerd who just took his Con Law exam.>>>I personally think we should have similar laws here.Actually, we already (kinda) do have similar laws here – or at least a similar legal standard in terms of hate speech.The Supreme Court has held that you CAN make laws that restrict unprotected speech (such as hate speech, fighting words, libel, etc). But generally, you CAN’T have content/viewpoint discrimination within those laws (w/ a couple exceptions). E.g., the government could pass a law that prohibits libel, but not a law that prohibits libel only against the government. So basically, the government can only regulate hate speech if the category it’s regulating is broad enough. A law saying “no hate speech” is probably fine… but not a law saying “no hateful speech against gay people.” The only difference between us and the U.K. is that, while such a law would be constitutional, we don’t have one on the books yet. I have a feeling that such a law is on its way though.>>>So a future Republican government might sanction me for speaking out against them?No, because speaking out against the government is political speech, and is therefore presumptively protected. Even if a corrupt republican congress tried to pass a statute or regulation construing something you (and people like you) said as ‘slander,’ ‘hate speech,’ or some other kind of unprotected speech, they wouldn’t be able to do so – because that would be viewpoint discrimination, and it would be struck down in a second. No need to even worry about a biased judiciary either – the opinions setting forth these free speech standards were mostly authored by Antonin Scalia.I’m not familiar w/ Britain’s hate speech law; but based on the quotes Razor posted above, I’m sure Savage violates it on a daily basis. But I totally agree w/ Bob in not liking the “banned from our country” approach. Since he didn’t say any of these things whilst in Britain, and therefore didn’t actually violate their laws, I don’t see why they’d ban him from their country…even though if he said those things withing their borders they could clearly take legal action.Think about it…that would be like me not being allowed back into America after I spend part of my summer in Amsterdam violating….certain American laws…

“the opinions setting forth these free speech standards were mostly authored by Antonin Scalia.”Don’t kid yourself. If it benefited the GOP, Scalia would magically “forget” all of those standards he previously wrote in favor whatever line of reasoning would help his party.

>>>Don’t kid yourself. If it benefited the GOP, Scalia would magically “forget” all of those standards he previously wrote in favor whatever line of reasoning would help his party.D.C., you are very right, and that is definitely a valid point. But people are too quick to jump on Scalia et al. for abandoning their principles in order to benefit a certain brand of politics. The liberal justices are equally guilty. Take Bush v. Gore…Yes, Scalia abandoned his principles and decided that he wanted to expand the doctrine of equal protection for the first time EVER in order to reach his desired result. On the other hand, the liberals were just as quick to go against their own principles by arguing against equal protection. Hell, a couple of them even spouted off the whole “leave it to the legislature” line that Scalia/Thomas have become so fond of. They sounded like a bunch of strict-constructionist, originalist assholes.What can ya do…it’s a results oriented court I guess. Scalia isn’t an originalist b/c he thinks it’s the right way to look at the constitution; he’s an originalist b/c reading the constitution that way is (usually) good for conservative causes. And the liberals don’t favor an “evolving” view of the constitution in and of itself; they favor it b/c it’s usually good for liberal causes.

That’s the problem with the over-politicization of the SCOTUS that we’ve had over the past few decades. We’ve stuffed the court with partisan hacks of both stripes who will do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to advance their party’s interest. Miers was the just the most blatant example of trying to do that.Ironically, the guy who is retiring, Souter, is probably one of the lest partisan justices in a long time. That’s why many in the GOP regard him as a traitor.

Fully agreed. Souter was, IMO, the best and most principled justice on that court. I’m sad to see him go…