Ann Coulter | Democratic Party | Don Imus | Michael Savage | News | Rush Limbaugh

Savage, Limbaugh, Imus, Coulter: The Week in Hate Speech

Or should I say free speech?

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has voted unanimously to condemn hateful radio personality Michael Savage for comments he made about immigrants:

Savage_michael"The resolution, introduced by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, not only condemned the language used by Savage, but reiterated San Francisco's commitment to being a tolerant, respectful city. Savage made defamatory remarks about college students who were involved in a weeklong fast in San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza from July 2 to July 9 to urge Congress to pass an immigration reform bill. Savage said in a radio program on July 5 that the demonstrators should "fast until they starve to death,' according to the resolution. The resolution states that the board deems Savage's comments as 'symbolic of hatred and racism,' both of which are not tolerated or endorsed by the city and county."

Savage's remarks in the past have also been virulently homophobic.

0_61_100107_limbaughClear Channel has responded to a letter from Harry Reid and Senate Democrats calling on the network "to publicly repudiate" comments made by Rush Limbaugh about "phony soldiers".

Said Clear Channel's president Mark P. Mays: "Mr. Limbaugh's comments have stirred a lot of emotion, and I have carefully read the transcript in question. Given Mr. Limbaugh's history of support for our soldiers, it would be unfair for me to assume his statements were intended to personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn't share his own beliefs regarding the war in Iraq. I hope that you understand and support my position that while I certainly do not agree with all the views that are voiced on our stations, I will not condemn our talent for exercising their right to voice them."

Meanwhile, "In the House, Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., who is running for the open Senate seat in his state, has authored a resolution condemning the host. Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has not decided whether or not he'll bring it up for a vote, his staff told FOX News."

ImusNewsday reports that Citadel Broadcasting is close to finishing up a deal with Don Imus that would put him back on the air for the first time since CBS fired him for making derogatory remarks about the Rutgers Women's basketball team: "It was not immediately clear from where Imus would be heard, but Citadel owns WABC in New York, making its morning slot a logical destination. It also owns WPLJ-FM. Currently the ABC spot is occupied by Ron Kuby and Curtis Sliwa."

And finally, Ann Coulter's piehole has a new book out and it's already raising a stink. Unfortunately, in the next few weeks, you're likely to hear the piehole spewing forth.

You may have missed...
Towleroad Guide to the Tube #180: Phony Soldier Edition [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Is Mark Udall the son of Morris Udall? If so, that's great. Morris Udall was a gentleman and humanitarian, and the first person I ever voted for in the PA Democractic Primary of 1976. I hope he's like his father.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 3, 2007 11:44:26 AM


  2. yes, derrick, he is. and he's a good guy.

    Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006)
    Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
    Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
    Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
    Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
    Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
    Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)
    Rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

    re: the punk-ass statement from clear channel's mays. clear channel stations had no qualms about banning the dixie chicks. what an asshole.

    Posted by: nic | Oct 3, 2007 12:16:55 PM


  3. the second-to-last item on the list should read, "Sponsered Constitutional Amendment for..."

    sorry.

    Posted by: nic | Oct 3, 2007 12:35:22 PM


  4. For those who are unaware, Michael Savage's real name is Michael Weiner (yes, I'm serious). His son is Russell Weiner, the founder and CEO of Rock Star Energy Drink. Before founding Rock Star, Russell Weiner and his father co-founded The Paul Revere Society whose mission statement is to bring "together Americans who actively seek to take back our borders, our language, and our traditional culture from the liberal left corroding our great nation." If you drink Rock Star, you are supporting this sort of bullshit.

    Posted by: peterparker | Oct 3, 2007 12:38:29 PM


  5. I don't have a problem with any of this. Free speech is what it's all about, and the fact that so much time is being spent on what Rush says (who the fuck cares?) or the Moveon.Org advertisement is disgusting!

    Posted by: Wayne | Oct 3, 2007 12:39:09 PM


  6. And can we count on Cyd "Ronnie Reagan Please Come Back & Fuck the Shit Out of Me" Ziegler of Outsports.com to add Coulter's latest printed vomit to the books he pimps for her at

    http://thedooryard.typepad.com/ ?

    Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 3, 2007 12:40:49 PM


  7. The problem is; all we see is this garbage. Especially nearing a major election year. Everyone is clammoring for the spotlight so they can get their crude and obnoxious sound bite and 15 seconds of fame in before the next crap head comes along. It's like all the media has to cover is either Britney/Lindsay/OJ or these morons. The Jena 7? White boys accused of harrassing black boys? That's not news worthy; page 6-it.

    How many lawsuits will it take? How angry does the public have to be before these crap head morons are shut down?

    Freedom to hate spew hatred in the name of speech.


    Posted by: Rad | Oct 3, 2007 12:56:41 PM


  8. I'm still laughing at the douchebag calling Rush "Drug Addict" Limbaugh "talent"

    HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

    .

    Posted by: dc-20008 | Oct 3, 2007 1:06:42 PM


  9. WAYNE,

    While I have a huge problem with what these people are saying, I have no problem whatsoever with allowing them to say it. After all, it helps me decide who to support...or not support as the case may be.

    Posted by: peterparker | Oct 3, 2007 1:24:52 PM


  10. I hope people don't believe Rush when he states on air that he has doubts about evolution, etc. He's just saying things he thinks his listeners want to hear. He's a radio announcer, a mouthpiece for others, pandering to a particular demographic base. One reason liberal talk radio has done so poorly is that their on-air personalities actually believe the things they say and don't come from an advertising/marketing background where it's not what you say but how you say it that counts.

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 3, 2007 1:36:56 PM


  11. Wow, I didn't know that about the OutSports dude. Gay Republicans are one thing... certainly not something I condone, but you are entitled to your own politics.

    But a gay man who actively supports Ann Coulter is beyond comprehension. What an enormous tool.

    Posted by: crispy | Oct 3, 2007 1:40:24 PM


  12. He gets a second chance: Bring back the wit, sarcasm and humor of Imus!

    Posted by: Cramps | Oct 3, 2007 2:07:22 PM


  13. PETERPARKER -- Thanks for the info about RockStar. I knew I didn't like that stuff; just wasn't sure why. My one-man boycott is on.

    Posted by: Alan | Oct 3, 2007 2:21:40 PM


  14. Rockstar is a piss drink anyway. No loss there. It's disgusting crap manufactured purely for marketing.

    Posted by: CF | Oct 3, 2007 2:32:20 PM


  15. what an idiocracy we are living in ! this is all the house and senate and boards of supes have to do is to make proclamations "condemning" people's opinions, comments, and advertising ???
    it's called free speech guys.. look into it.

    Posted by: el polacko | Oct 3, 2007 4:06:25 PM


  16. Read here how Mann Coultergeist registered FRAUDULENTLY to vote in Florida! She's a fucking fraud AND a felon.

    http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=4380

    Just one more drug-addicted, criminal wing-nut.

    Posted by: bamjaya | Oct 3, 2007 4:11:32 PM


  17. Oh joy! Another Coulter pile of lies and hate. Why does this c*nt get a forum anyway? She says nothing of value, and generally lies, so why does she get on "news" shows to have a platform? It really bothers me.

    By all means let her spew whatever distorted bullshit that she wants, publish her books, blah blah blah, but why do the media have to enable her? Free speech is a right, a public forum is not. And that goes for Savage and Rush too. It's the double standard that bugs when they barf the kind of crap that comes out of their mouths. Of course they're free to say it, and I will continue to ignore it. It is discredited, it demonstrates no humanity or intelligence, it is a waste of time. But ClearChannel won't criticise that "talent" (huh? talent?) but feels free to censor what it doesn't like. Whatever. CNN won't put on an actual left voice, but keeps that Savage moron on the air.

    Posted by: So Left I'm Right | Oct 3, 2007 9:02:46 PM


  18. what is really frustrating is when anyone brings up the hackneyed "freedom of speech" defense. i say hackneyed in the since that every time a big deal is made about someone saying something outrageous like what limbaugh said (and says on a regular basis) and what coulter (the self-described polemicist, as if she had anything at all in common with ayn rand) says almost non-stop, the people who by rote utter "freedom of speech" presume to say that no one should complain and no one should be taken to task. freedom of speech has nothing to do with this issue. just as a person has the right to say just about anything, save for the most incendiary utterances, the person or persons who object to the emotionally charged statements have the right to object.

    the repugs who are, so they claim, the strict-constructionist champions of the constitution have no reservations about amending that document on a whim, e.g. flag burning, gay marriage, the pledge of allegiance, and on. yet what did they, in all their manufactured outrage, cynical indignation, and shameless grand standing do when moveon.org played a word game with general betray-us's name (sorry, gen. petraeus)? did they defend free speech and freedom of expression? no. they entered a resolution condemning moveon.org despite the fact they were acting within their constitutionally protected rights. will they initiate a similar condemnation of limbaugh or even sign on to one? don't hold your breath.

    Posted by: nic | Oct 3, 2007 9:58:33 PM


  19. if no sanctions or punitive measures are imposed by the San Fran Bd of Supervisors vote, and if Savage suffers no damage from their actions, then the Board can declare as they choose. If, however, that is not the case, then the Board's actions are unconstitutional and should be decried by all. Tomorrow it could be a punitive action by a different Board over something with which one passionately disagrees.

    Posted by: luke | Oct 4, 2007 12:27:12 AM


  20. Luke,

    wtf is wrong w/u?

    explain yourself.

    Posted by: nic | Oct 4, 2007 2:45:22 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Whoopi Goldberg Wants to "Do" Nancy Pelosi and Her Husband« «