Comments

  1. Wayne says

    I love the NPR host response: “then go do them”! That is perfect! Savage, er Weiner, is getting exactly what he deserves and I can only hope that Rush is next in line.

  2. Tweety says

    How did he know what the caller was wearing? Or was he just projecting his repressed homo-erotic fantasies? Pajamas and mental institutions? Hmmm. Kinky.

  3. dennis says

    Savage is such a chicken shit He lives in San Francisco and he goes everywhere in disguise (He’s frightened of lefties and gays). Savage says he fears for his life but he’s really just a coward.

  4. Merlinmaster says

    The reason he likes the medium of radio is because it is a one way conversation. People who tune in must listen to him, and if he gets a caller he disagrees with, he can hang up on them. Hanging up on NPR just shows how closed minded of a person he really is.

    As for being banned, while I don’t entirely agree with it… he is one who in the past has incited hate. A government has an obligation to protect it’s citizens from any danger they may see. For a someone to sue them for being put on this list for defamation is just stupid. Remember that the US also bans people who we feel may incite hate or violence!

  5. paul c says

    I agree with Derek Washington. And not only are they banning people based on their supposedly dangerous views, they’re hand picking them in a rather arbitrary manner.

    How many people in Britain had ever even heard of him prior to this ban? Probably next to none. Now they have. Now he has an audience who will search him out on the internet.

    The incompetent Smith’s little power play has backfired. She should be canned.

  6. WizardBoy says

    Some may remember Savage was on MSNBC weekly (Saturday afternoon) a few years ago. He got mad at one caller who he presumed was gay and told the caller to “die of AIDS”…. Shortly thereafter his program was cancelled.

    Savage is on the radio in Milwaukee (tape delayed at 11 PM) and speaks such hatred, homophobia and obnoxious rantings that I am surprised anyone supports him at all.

    His website looks like it was designed by a 12-year old and is “tame” in comparison to his radio rantings.

    I think he knows — but has a low regard for the public that he doesn’t know WE know — that the 1st Amendment applies to US citizens in the US. Yet he claims he is going to sue the English government based on “freedom of speech”.

    He’s making money and getting the publicity he wants out of all this.

  7. Ben says

    I’m not a legal expert, but can you sue a government official in the United Kingdom for defamation if the alleged slander arises from an official act? I mean, it would be like Osama bin Laden suing Barack Obama for libel because he’s on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List.

    Why not just sue to overturn the ban?

  8. alex says

    Derek and others – what’s your problem with banning him? If the UK considers what he does to be hate speech and incitement to hatred then it’s their right as a sovereign nation. Virtually all laws are arbitrary in some way (legal age to drive/drink/marry, for example), and these kinds in particular are not black and white.

  9. Sargon Bighorn says

    DEREK, you are NOT a dick, come here into my ample bosom and let Momma give you a hard long hug. Feel better now? Momma does. I tend to agree with you Derek, it does smack of the “thought police.”

    His views are broadcast to get listeners, NOT to educate or enlighten any one. He is a modern day Snake Oil salesman. Americans being the sheeple they are, tend to believe what they read and hear. They never ask questions, they never think deeply (cept the crowd here of course. You are all shining beacons of light). Of course the Brits have the right to not grant a visa to whom ever they wish for what ever reason they wish. Such is the dark side of Democracy.

  10. Subrata Ghosh says

    Savage is an idiot, racist, homophobic, islamophobic etc. He keeps suing everybody but I have never heard of him winning any of his idiotic lawsuits. If you can believe it he recently sued secretary of homeland security, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), to name a few.

  11. CK says

    Savage is like a steaming pile of cow shit… annoys everyone with his stinking vileness but will eventually just dry up and blow away like dust… the sooner the better. So long, Weiner!

  12. DRH says

    BTW, I’m old enough to remember when the left was pro-free speech, not just free speech for themselves. The current left has turned fascist, it seems. Just look at the comments here.

  13. DRH says

    Soooo…. Sargon…. suppose the UK decided to ban all foreign gays from entry. That would be their “right as a sovereign nation”… right?

  14. Darrien says

    So, lemme get this right. Savage is going to spend far more money hiring British lawyers to fight his case than he would ever spend as a tourist. And he’s going to lose the case because all the law is against him. And he’s not even going to come to the country. Ummm… I don’t like Smith as a politician or as a person, but from a British point of view, this seems to be win-win all round for the UK.
    As for countries banning people they don’t like – all countries do it. Until recently the US used to ban anyone from a foreign country who had AIDS (which the UK didn’t, btw). It’s a different cultural thing about what’s regarded as acceptable. The US is in no more a position to lecture the UK about freedom than the UK is to lecture the US. Different countries, different societies, different belief systems and all that.

  15. argyle says

    DRH and those decrying the “anti-free speech left” are confused on many levels.

    1) Why are you presuming only lefties are for the ban? Last time I checked, Derek was no Dick Cheney. And I’m no socialist.

    2) What does free speech have to do with this? This is a question of freedom of travel. The UK has the right to deny entry to non-citizens for whatever reason. ICE does it every day for silly reasons like “you don’t have a visa” or “you could be a terrorist”… oh wait, that second one is valid because it protects people from potential harm. Kind of like protecting people in the UK from the shit-stirring hater that is Savage.

    Savage’s broadcasts aren’t banned on the net in the UK, nor are his books or recordings. It’s just his hateful ass that we don’t want on our continent.

    The free speech that is rightly protected in Western laws is exactly what gives us the tools in Europe to keep Savage away from our shores. There are plenty of people I’d like to see on the list that everyone else might disagree with, and vice versa, but as Alex said it’s all a bit arbitrary unless the person has a conviction or is wanted for a crime.

    You all use the term thought crime when what we’re talking about is incitement to hatred. Even if Savage is expressing his views for fun and frolics, there are people who will take it seriously. Thought police would be immoral, but so would a government which allowed its nation to be poisoned by foreign hatemongers.

  16. paul c says

    @Argyle – you’re mistaken. Derek rightfully disagrees with the ban.

    Weren’t you the same people who just had six months of ludicrous, over the top national mourning for a racist reality tv “star”?

    All Smith has accomplished is making a star out of Savage in the UK. He can come over after the ban is lifted and replace your beloved English rose, Jade Goody.

  17. Rhydderch Perkins says

    I find it really annoying that countries are publicly denoucing/ banning/ denying travel visas to “celebrities”. Really? Banning Michael Savage from entering Great Britain because the ‘head chica in charge’ disagrees with his point of view is frightening. I’ve never listened to his except for when he says something OUTRAGEOUS. and everyone gets all bent out of shape, which results in more publicity for him, higher ratings and stronger negotiating power when it’s time to renew his contract. (Ca-CHING!)From what I can gather he seems to be just an opportunist and a repressed self-hating homosexual. It’s sad that he’s so unhappy with himself that he redirects his rage at others, but I just tend to ignore people like that. Don’t give hime any attention and he’ll go away. I guess we should thank the media for even reporting on this guy’s antics as if anyone takes him as some serious thinker.

    However I do love how Neal Cohen owned his ass

  18. Coemgen in the UK says

    You seem to miss the point. The Home Secretary is not “shutting down political speech by fiat”, or, as seen in other posts, interfering with the foreign USA constitution’s right to free speech. He can still spew out as much of his horrible bile as his radio bosses want him to in order to get listeners – he just can’t do it here. He is a very unpleasant foreigner, he doesn’t have rights here (try Homeland Security on that one!) It’s a restriction on movement, not speech or thought. Sorry, Britain isn’t in the grip of fascist anti-free speech laws. We just don’t want this nasty piece of work coming here. He can stay at home and use the Internet like every other nutter.

  19. Jake says

    I don’t know any comments he has made but it must of been something pretty damn serious to be denied entry to Britain. He is idiotic though why does he keep repeating England? He’s been denied entry to 4 countries not one.

  20. argyle says

    PAUL C – I’m not British. I know very little about Jade Goody, and you clearly know next to nothing about making a good argument. Ad hominem attacks and talking about a completely different subject don’t really advance the point.

  21. paul c says

    @Argyle – I took your comments “It’s just his hateful ass that we don’t want on our continent” and “protecting people in the UK from the shit-stirring hater that is Savage” as an implication that there is something pure and superior about Britain…as if the introduction of an asshole from America would be so new and dangerous…and beneath them. That’s why I responded with the comment about the illogical and pitiful worshipping by the British of a low-life, racist of their own.

  22. nic says

    @paul c,

    what you may infer in your rightist, repug mind from someone else’s implication (as you believe it to be) is as distinct as dan savage is from jade goody. dan wiener is a self-serving mountebank with a forum, while poor little jade was a clueless reality show contestant.

    england is well within its right to ban any foreigner who may incite violence within its borders. our constitution means nothing over there. our constitution is the law of OUR land, not theirs. perhaps in wienerland president wiener can huff and puff and blow liberal houses down, but in the real world he is just another little piggy crying wee, wee, wee all the way home.

    suing a u.k. oficial?! hahahaha! what a demented piece of human detritus dan savage is.

  23. paul c says

    @Nic – the hole in the banning argument is that there are already serious and extreme hatemongers in Britain who are far more radical than Savage and they are given free reign. The UK is not some utopian wonderland that will suddenly be thrown into chaos by a visit from a cartoonish American radio host.

    The woman who instituted the ban did so in a rather arbitrary manner, and from what I have read she is neither well-respected nor likely to have her job for very long. She’s made Savage famous in Britain, given him a much louder voice and an audience that didn’t exist previously. She’s also made him a martyr among right-wing extremists here in the US. I would be willing to bet that the ban is lifted and that he walks away more successful and influential than before.

    Also, the man’s name is Michael Savage aka Weiner. Dan Savage is an out gay man who writes a sex column. Who’s to say if some government couldn’t ban him next? Gay sex and talk about it aren’t held in very high regard in many places. Should he be banned from travel to those places?

    There needs to be a higher severity of “threat” before a national government takes such fascistic steps.

  24. nic says

    PAUL C,

    i don’t know why i constantly confuse the names (dan/michael). the two could not be more different. i think that i let my disdain for michael wiener cause brain farts. nevertheless, a country should be able to control its borders. we have not handled our own borders well here in the good ol’ usa. the dirty “secret” is that we like canadians, but we mexicans are anathema. we have banned pot smokers like john lennon and arbitrarily banned supposed AIDS carriers from all over the globe.

    neither ‘grass’ nor AIDS could ever have the toxicity that the bile that flows from this man’s mouth does. and, while you think that england’s stand is fascist, i think that it is a positive stroke for decency (i.e.) i may allow you to say whatever you wish, but it is not incumbent on me to welcome you into my home and say that trash.

    paul c, i am using the general ‘you’ here. you, however, are welcome in my house whenever you abandon the dark side.

Leave A Reply