PDA

View Full Version : San Francisco supervisors condemn Savage



stephanie
10-02-2007, 05:38 PM
The liberals trying to squelch free speech, again..Man this is becoming very scary...

Posted: October 2, 2007
5:33 p.m. Eastern



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com



San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors today condemned nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage, whose program originates in city by the bay, for "hate speech."

It was the board's second attempt at a resolution to condemn Savage for his criticism of illegal aliens in the U.S.

In August, a single vote by a member whose grandfather emigrated from China seven decades ago halted a similar resolution its tracks.

The previous vote was 9-1, with third generation San Franciscan Ed Jew turning in the veto vote, after getting up and affirming Savage's First Amendment right to express his opinion.

Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval had introduced the resolution in August to condemn the radio talker. After the vote, he called for the tally to be rescinded and the proposal sent to committee, which essentially is a polite way of letting the issue die.

"For the record, I do not agree with comments allegedly made by Mr. Savage, but the First Amendment gives him the right to make those comments," Jew said.

(Story continues below)


Sandoval responded with a personal challenge to Jew.

"If this commentary was directed at the Chinese-American or the Asian community, you would not be resorting to this rigid formalism on your part," he said.

That first effort was an attempt to pass the hate crimes condemnation unanimously to avoid a committee hearing. Having missed out on the unanimous vote, the measure is back now from committee.

"This is a dry run against free speech in America by the Islamists and the illegal aliens who are now becoming one and the same," said Savage in August. "It's the same organizational structure. … I am the target of this dry run. They want to see how far they can get in silencing a voice of freedom in the United States of America. They want to see which, if any, governmental agencies will stop them."

"Guess what they learned so far?" he continued. "That not only will no governmental agency stop them in their attempts to kill free speech, they will aid them in their attempts to kill free speech. We have lost our freedoms already.

"Lady Liberty has been hog tied. She is being raped by the illegal aliens. She is being raped by the landlords who are using the illegal aliens. Lady Liberty is there in bindings screaming for us to release her," he said.

Sandoval, who spearheaded the measure, said condemnation of immigrants "leads to the beating of Muslim-Americans and many other Americans."

"This attempt to vilify Latino-Americans will not be tolerated," he said. "We are saying first that we are recognizing this speech is hateful and we are condemning it. Don't fool yourselves. This kind of speech just incites behavior that is nothing short of hysteria. It's the kind of hysterical behavior we saw in Nazi Germany 60 years ago."

One of the nation's top civil rights attorneys offered his assistance to Savage in suing Sandoval.

Daniel A. Horowitz of Oakland, Calif., wrote to Savage after Sandoval introduced his resolution.

"You have a strong federal civil rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the city of San Francisco," he advised. "You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired."

Horowitz said the Civil Rights Act of 1871, designed to tame the terror of the Ku Klux Klan, can be used as the basis for a federal civil rights action against the official and the city.

"You are protected by this civil rights act because you are the victim of the same type of mob terror that (the) Klan used to inflict," wrote Horowitz. "This terror is being organized against you simply because people do not like what you say. Translated into legal language, you are being attacked by a type of terrorist because you have exercised your First Amendment rights."

read the rest at..
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57947

Trigg
10-02-2007, 05:50 PM
"This attempt to vilify Latino-Americans will not be tolerated,"

It will be interresting to see how this turns out. The quote above is disturbing since Savage is talking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS not Americans.


Question: Why do minority groups want to be ______- Americans, why don't they consider themselves fully Americans??

stephanie
10-02-2007, 05:56 PM
It will be interesting to see how this turns out. The quote above is disturbing since Savage is talking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS not Americans.


Question: Why do minority groups want to be ______- Americans, why don't they consider themselves fully Americans??

They know he was talking about...illegal immigrants...
This is becoming very disturbing how these people are trying to shut up free speech..

manu1959
10-02-2007, 06:07 PM
It was the board's second attempt at a resolution to condemn Savage for his criticism of illegal aliens in the U.S.

can one no longer criticize illegal activity?

Trigg
10-02-2007, 06:07 PM
They know he was talking about...illegal immigrants...
This is becoming very disturbing how these people are trying to shut up free speech..

I agree. People who are pro-amnesty are trying to muddy the waters so that anyone who is against amnesty is racist, as if the only illegals running around this country are from Mexico. Which is complete BS.

Gaffer
10-02-2007, 06:09 PM
I'm beginning to think we are going to need to go into SF militarily and retake the city. This is starting to go from silly to out right stupid, touching on treason. The idea that they want to silence him that badly says a lot about them.

manu1959
10-02-2007, 06:16 PM
I'm beginning to think we are going to need to go into SF militarily and retake the city. This is starting to go from silly to out right stupid, touching on treason. The idea that they want to silence him that badly says a lot about them.

they voted to ban guns....they are a sanctuary city....they married gay people.....they have rent control.....they have a living wage of 11 / hr......they voted no more fleet week.... they voted not to have the Missouri docked there...the list goes on.....plus the place is dirty as hell with homeless people everywhere....the giants and niners both suck....

not sure there is anything worth taking....

Gaffer
10-02-2007, 06:48 PM
they voted to ban guns....they are a sanctuary city....they married gay people.....they have rent control.....they have a living wage of 11 / hr......they voted no more fleet week.... they voted not to have the Missouri docked there...the list goes on.....plus the place is dirty as hell with homeless people everywhere....the giants and niners both suck....

not sure there is anything worth taking....

Yeah probably better to level the place and start over. Where are those pesky earth quakes when you need them.

April15
10-02-2007, 07:37 PM
Savage nation, why care about loosers? He is a joke so why the concern?

Yurt
10-02-2007, 08:11 PM
It was the board's second attempt at a resolution to condemn Savage for his criticism of illegal aliens in the U.S.

can one no longer criticize illegal activity?

is there much left that is "illegal" in SF? didn't the mayor break the law by approving gay marriage. as long as it gets them voters, the san fransicko dems will do anything to make their cause legal. see, robbers, gangs, and such, don't have a lot of voting power, so they can keep that kind of stuff illegal. However, illegals have a fairly broad base despite many LEGAL mexican immigrants that are opposed to their view. Gays, have a powerful lobby, thus, the bending over that the dems to in frisco.

just my two and a half shillings


Edit:

just saw your post:


they voted to ban guns....they are a sanctuary city....they married gay people.....they have rent control.....they have a living wage of 11 / hr......they voted no more fleet week.... they voted not to have the Missouri docked there...the list goes on.....plus the place is dirty as hell with homeless people everywhere....the giants and niners both suck....

not sure there is anything worth taking....

Yurt
10-02-2007, 08:12 PM
Savage nation, why care about loosers? He is a joke so why the concern?

why is he a loser? why is he a joke?

so you support ILLEGAL immigrants?

Sitarro
10-02-2007, 08:45 PM
Those FAGGOTS!

Hugh Lincoln
10-02-2007, 08:47 PM
they voted to ban guns....they are a sanctuary city....they married gay people.....they have rent control.....they have a living wage of 11 / hr......they voted no more fleet week.... they voted not to have the Missouri docked there...the list goes on.....plus the place is dirty as hell with homeless people everywhere....the giants and niners both suck....

not sure there is anything worth taking....

The eucalyptus trees smell very nice.

Yurt
10-02-2007, 08:54 PM
Those FAGGOTS!

Those who? My monitor is set to ignore code pink.

Abbey Marie
10-02-2007, 08:58 PM
Savage nation, why care about loosers? He is a joke so why the concern?

So stifling free speech does not concern you?

Yet at the same time, libs wail and moan about the theoretical loss of civil liberties form the Patriot Act. What a sad country we are turning into.

manu1959
10-02-2007, 09:00 PM
The eucalyptus trees smell very nice.

they are voting to cut all those down as they are a fire hazzard and non native.......

stephanie
10-02-2007, 09:10 PM
they are voting to cut all those down as they are a fire hazard and non native.......


Well..maybe they could borrow those tree sitters from Berkley to come and sit in them...:coffee:

It's not the same California I knew way back...

Yurt
10-02-2007, 09:27 PM
they are voting to cut all those down as they are a fire hazzard and non native.......

haha

SLO loves to talk about getting rid of non native "species" of plants and YET, they will not let go those ancient eucalypsis trees that have been here for oh, so very, oh long.

:rolleyes:

TheyLive
10-02-2007, 09:27 PM
[I][COLOR="Blue"]

can one no longer criticize illegal activity?

Of course, you can -- and people are free to take offense, if they like. They can even pass resolutions of condemnation, like the House of Representatives did last week against MoveOn.org with regard to their General Betray Us ad. I presume few in this thread registered any objection to that -- or were you calling for military occupation of the House on charges of "treason" in that case, too?

stephanie
10-02-2007, 09:52 PM
Of course, you can -- and people are free to take offense, if they like. They can even pass resolutions of condemnation, like the House of Representatives did last week against MoveOn.org with regard to their General Betray Us ad. I presume few in this thread registered any objection to that -- or were you calling for military occupation of the House on charges of "treason" in that case, too?

wrong thread....

waterrescuedude2000
10-02-2007, 11:40 PM
Bill manders a local dj from reno is under fire for comments about the ICE raids this week here. 11 Mcdonalds were raided and 56 illegals rounded up. Last Thursday. Only 7 were deported and the rest released what kind of crap is that??? Now the hispanics are up in arms. One store in reno put a mexican flag above the us flag and pissed a lot of people off a mob of people went and cut the mexican flag down. So they are threatening boycotts and walking out of work. God how they piss me off. So on Thursday when they go to the federal courthouse and protest me and a big group are gonna go and burn the mexican flag.

Here are some links
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200771002024
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007710020314
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200771002052
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709300323

avatar4321
10-03-2007, 02:05 AM
It was the board's second attempt at a resolution to condemn Savage for his criticism of illegal aliens in the U.S.

can one no longer criticize illegal activity?

Not when politicians are the ones guilty of it.

avatar4321
10-03-2007, 02:07 AM
So stifling free speech does not concern you?

Yet at the same time, libs wail and moan about the theoretical loss of civil liberties form the Patriot Act. What a sad country we are turning into.

They arent concerned about "civil liberties" they are concerned that the government will catch them in their illegal activities.

actsnoblemartin
10-03-2007, 02:55 AM
I support savage 100%. He has the right to say whatever he wants, if you dont like it, dont listen.


the city of san francisco has a facist government who wants to change the law like the nazis did, to suppress free thinkers.

All americans should have the right to peaceably speak their mind without fear of retribution.


The liberals trying to squelch free speech, again..Man this is becoming very scary...

Posted: October 2, 2007
5:33 p.m. Eastern



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com



San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors today condemned nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage, whose program originates in city by the bay, for "hate speech."

It was the board's second attempt at a resolution to condemn Savage for his criticism of illegal aliens in the U.S.

In August, a single vote by a member whose grandfather emigrated from China seven decades ago halted a similar resolution its tracks.

The previous vote was 9-1, with third generation San Franciscan Ed Jew turning in the veto vote, after getting up and affirming Savage's First Amendment right to express his opinion.

Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval had introduced the resolution in August to condemn the radio talker. After the vote, he called for the tally to be rescinded and the proposal sent to committee, which essentially is a polite way of letting the issue die.

"For the record, I do not agree with comments allegedly made by Mr. Savage, but the First Amendment gives him the right to make those comments," Jew said.

(Story continues below)


Sandoval responded with a personal challenge to Jew.

"If this commentary was directed at the Chinese-American or the Asian community, you would not be resorting to this rigid formalism on your part," he said.

That first effort was an attempt to pass the hate crimes condemnation unanimously to avoid a committee hearing. Having missed out on the unanimous vote, the measure is back now from committee.

"This is a dry run against free speech in America by the Islamists and the illegal aliens who are now becoming one and the same," said Savage in August. "It's the same organizational structure. … I am the target of this dry run. They want to see how far they can get in silencing a voice of freedom in the United States of America. They want to see which, if any, governmental agencies will stop them."

"Guess what they learned so far?" he continued. "That not only will no governmental agency stop them in their attempts to kill free speech, they will aid them in their attempts to kill free speech. We have lost our freedoms already.

"Lady Liberty has been hog tied. She is being raped by the illegal aliens. She is being raped by the landlords who are using the illegal aliens. Lady Liberty is there in bindings screaming for us to release her," he said.

Sandoval, who spearheaded the measure, said condemnation of immigrants "leads to the beating of Muslim-Americans and many other Americans."

"This attempt to vilify Latino-Americans will not be tolerated," he said. "We are saying first that we are recognizing this speech is hateful and we are condemning it. Don't fool yourselves. This kind of speech just incites behavior that is nothing short of hysteria. It's the kind of hysterical behavior we saw in Nazi Germany 60 years ago."

One of the nation's top civil rights attorneys offered his assistance to Savage in suing Sandoval.

Daniel A. Horowitz of Oakland, Calif., wrote to Savage after Sandoval introduced his resolution.

"You have a strong federal civil rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the city of San Francisco," he advised. "You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired."

Horowitz said the Civil Rights Act of 1871, designed to tame the terror of the Ku Klux Klan, can be used as the basis for a federal civil rights action against the official and the city.

"You are protected by this civil rights act because you are the victim of the same type of mob terror that (the) Klan used to inflict," wrote Horowitz. "This terror is being organized against you simply because people do not like what you say. Translated into legal language, you are being attacked by a type of terrorist because you have exercised your First Amendment rights."

read the rest at..
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57947

Abbey Marie
10-03-2007, 11:14 AM
They arent concerned about "civil liverties" they are concerned that the government will catch them in their illegal activities.

San Fran left wingnuts and the anti-cartoon Muslims in Denmark- not really so far apart.

TheyLive
10-04-2007, 04:57 PM
I support savage 100%. He has the right to say whatever he wants, if you dont like it, dont listen.

The city of san francisco has a facist government who wants to change the law like the nazis did, to suppress free thinkers.

All americans should have the right to peaceably speak their mind without fear of retribution.

San Francisco is making a public declaration that they disagree with Mr. Savage's comments, probably due to pressure from their constituency. There's nothing controversial about that; government bodies make public declarations all the time. Just last week the House of Representatives condemned Moveon.org for an ad published in the New York Times. Did you feel the House was infringing on Moveon's right to free expression by taking a position? Then there is no grounds to vilify San Francisco for doing the same thing. Freedom of speech doesn't enter the equation in either scenario, since no action was taken to stop these people from continuing to speak.

It's important to remember that freedom of speech does not include the freedom not be criticized for your speech, whether that criticism comes from individuals, private organizations, or public representatives.

Abbey Marie
10-04-2007, 05:06 PM
San Francisco is making a public declaration that they disagree with Mr. Savage's comments, probably due to pressure from their constituency. There's nothing controversial about that; government bodies make public declarations all the time. Just last week the House of Representatives condemned Moveon.org for an ad published in the New York Times. Did you feel the House was infringing on Moveon's right to free expression by taking a position? Then there is no grounds to vilify San Francisco for doing the same thing. Freedom of speech doesn't enter the equation in either scenario, since no action was taken to stop these people from continuing to speak.

It's important to remember that freedom of speech does not include the freedom not be criticized for your speech, whether that criticism comes from individuals, private organizations, or public representatives.

"Tis true, but when that speech is condemned by public representatives, it takes on an official air, and is much more chilling than when an individual or private group does so. Ditto calling it "hate speech". That goes beyond simple criticism, to accusations of criminality.

Hagbard Celine
10-04-2007, 05:11 PM
I agree. People who are pro-amnesty are trying to muddy the waters so that anyone who is against amnesty is racist, as if the only illegals running around this country are from Mexico. Which is complete BS.

Let's be totally honest here. People who are pro-war are muddying the waters so that anyone they don't agree with is a terrorist. This is the only "scary" thing I see:


"This is a dry run against free speech in America by the Islamists and the illegal aliens who are now becoming one and the same," said Savage in August. "It's the same organizational structure. … I am the target of this dry run. They want to see how far they can get in silencing a voice of freedom in the United States of America. They want to see which, if any, governmental agencies will stop them."

This guy Savage is a polarizing shock-jock trying to get higher ratings. The people suing him are whiney babies who are probably righteously insulted by Savage's comments, but this isn't the first time a racist or controversial figure has been sued for his or her public comments. Remember Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flint? You guys act like the fate of the planet rests on every issue even though these are always the same issues regurgitated for the umpteenth time. This case will get thrown out because Savage does have the right to say what he wants under the First Amendment. His right to that speech is what I'm proud of. But nobody should be proud of or defend ignorant stereotypes or racist speech. Have some class for Christ's sake.

stephanie
10-04-2007, 05:41 PM
Let's be totally honest here. People who are pro-war are muddying the waters so that anyone they don't agree with is a terrorist. This is the only "scary" thing I see:



This guy Savage is a polarizing shock-jock trying to get higher ratings. The people suing him are whiney babies who are probably righteously insulted by Savage's comments, but this isn't the first time a racist or controversial figure has been sued for his or her public comments. Remember Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flint? You guys act like the fate of the planet rests on every issue even though these are always the same issues regurgitated for the umpteenth time. This case will get thrown out because Savage does have the right to say what he wants under the First Amendment. His right to that speech is what I'm proud of. But nobody should be proud of or defend ignorant stereotypes or racist speech. Have some class for Christ's sake.

you don't get it, do you...

San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors today condemned nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage, whose program originates in city by the bay, for "hate speech."

It was the board's second attempt at a resolution to condemn Savage for his criticism of illegal aliens in the U.S.

TheyLive
10-04-2007, 05:46 PM
"Tis true, but when that speech is condemned by public representatives, it takes on an official air, and is much more chilling than when an individual or private group does so. Ditto calling it "hate speech". That goes beyond simple criticism, to accusations of criminality.

Public representatives can say anything they want, just like anyone else. And they can draw attention to issues that they feel warrant exposure -- ads in the New York Times, inflammatory remarks by radio personalities, human rights violations in other countries, etc. -- by taking official positions. So long as this does not interfere with anybody else's rights -- directly or indirectly -- I don't see anything "chilling" about it. Does anybody care that Congress condemned a private political group for their speech? No, because the implications are restricted to protect the constitutional rights of that group.

If California attempted to imprison or fine or revoke the FCC license of Michael Savage, I would be the first person to defend his constitutional rights. He can say whatever he wants. But he is not protected from criticism -- official or unofficial -- of his views.

Abbey Marie
10-04-2007, 05:51 PM
Public representatives can say anything they want, just like anyone else. And they can draw attention to issues that they feel warrant exposure -- ads in the New York Times, inflammatory remarks by radio personalities, human rights violations in other countries, etc. -- by taking official positions. So long as this does not interfere with anybody else's rights -- directly or indirectly -- I don't see anything "chilling" about it. Does anybody care that Congress condemned a private political group for their speech? No, because the implications are restricted to protect the constitutional rights of that group.

If California attempted to imprison or fine or revoke the FCC license of Michael Savage, I would be the first person to defend his constitutional rights. He can say whatever he wants. But he is not protected from criticism -- official or unofficial -- of his views.


Now you are just repeating the point I have already addressed in your last post. I have already said they have the right to do so. But if they have their way, this man will be prosecuted for a hate crime. Far beyond mere "criticsm". I don't know you, but I am sure that you are able to see a difference between me critcizing someone for hate speech, and a public body doing so.

And tell me this: Why so many vicious attacks on right wing talk show guys all of a sudden? What are you all so afraid of? The truth?

stephanie
10-04-2007, 05:56 PM
Public representatives can say anything they want, just like anyone else. And they can draw attention to issues that they feel warrant exposure -- ads in the New York Times, inflammatory remarks by radio personalities, human rights violations in other countries, etc. -- by taking official positions. So long as this does not interfere with anybody Else's rights -- directly or indirectly -- I don't see anything "chilling" about it. Does anybody care that Congress condemned a private political group for their speech? No, because the implications are restricted to protect the constitutional rights of that group.

If California attempted to imprison or fine or revoke the FCC license of Michael Savage, I would be the first person to defend his constitutional rights. He can say whatever he wants. But he is not protected from criticism -- official or unofficial -- of his views.

The thing with moveon..is that they are a tax-exempt organization..
If they want to be a Private Political group, then they should not get tax-exemption..That's why they should of been rebuked...and was..

But now we have the government making attacks against Private CITIZENS..
The Democrats against Rush, here the San. Fran. supervisors against Savage..
I find that pretty scary..

Hagbard Celine
10-04-2007, 06:01 PM
you don't get it, do you...

Yes actually, I "get it" better than you do apparently. Is it really a surprise to you that Hispanic-Americans want to punish Savage for what they call "hate speech?" Do you remember what African-Americans did when Don Imus made his infamous remark or have you already forgotten?
Apparently, people get pissed-off when someone speaks disparagingly about their ethnicity. I know it's incredibly surprising. It surprised me too. :rolleyes:
The case has no legal support. Legal suits are filed all the time that end up getting thrown out of court. This one isn't special.

TheyLive
10-05-2007, 12:43 AM
Now you are just repeating the point I have already addressed in your last post. I have already said they have the right to do so. But if they have their way, this man will be prosecuted for a hate crime. Far beyond mere "criticism".

Michael Savage is not being prosecuted for anything. Do you know how we know that? Because if he was, his lawyer would have a case. Instead of having a case, he claims Savage is being attacked "by a type of terrorist" who has "lied" about what Savage said and is organizing a mob to go to his home and threaten him -- in other words, making crap up for PR purposes with no intention of filing suit, since there is no evidence (I presume) of anything remotely similar to what he describes.

Incidentally, the board of supervisors already "had their way" and passed the resolution Tuesday.

Let me know when Savage is "prosecuted for a hate crime" and I will gladly come to his defense. Until then -- and based on what I can see on Savage's website -- this story is effectively dead.

TheyLive
10-05-2007, 12:57 AM
But now we have the government making attacks against Private CITIZENS..
The Democrats against Rush, here the San. Fran. supervisors against Savage..
I find that pretty scary..

I don't know anything about the Limbaugh case; perhaps you can enlighten me.

It makes perfect sense that a city with a huge immigrant population would take issue with Savage's comments and consequently want the world to know that they do not endorse his views, that he does not represent what San Francisco is all about. Savage is a public personality, nationally syndicated, who is offensive to many; it's well within a community's right to make an official statement rejecting those views for themselves. I don't anticipate any legal action to take place for precisely these reasons.

Abbey Marie
10-05-2007, 10:34 AM
Michael Savage is not being prosecuted for anything. Do you know how we know that? Because if he was, his lawyer would have a case. Instead of having a case, he claims Savage is being attacked "by a type of terrorist" who has "lied" about what Savage said and is organizing a mob to go to his home and threaten him -- in other words, making crap up for PR purposes with no intention of filing suit, since there is no evidence (I presume) of anything remotely similar to what he describes.

Incidentally, the board of supervisors already "had their way" and passed the resolution Tuesday.

Let me know when Savage is "prosecuted for a hate crime" and I will gladly come to his defense. Until then -- and based on what I can see on Savage's website -- this story is effectively dead.

They would love to see him prosecuted. Anyone can see it. Whether or not they can do so is not really the point. Do you think that attempting to destroy someone's reputation and livelihood by accusing them of a federal crime because you don't like their opinions, is OK?

Is condemning someone for hate speech less or more damaging, than calling some basketball players "Nappy-headed hos"? Imus was fired for the latter, as I am sure you know.

TheyLive
10-05-2007, 10:35 PM
They would love to see him prosecuted. Anyone can see it. Whether or not they can do so is not really the point.

Actually, whether they can do so is exactly the point. It's the difference between living in the US and living in virtually any other country.


Do you think that attempting to destroy someone's reputation and livelihood by accusing them of a federal crime because you don't like their opinions, is OK?

What "federal crime" did the SF Board of Supervisors accuse Savage of in their resolution? Please point this out.


Is condemning someone for hate speech less or more damaging, than calling some basketball players "Nappy-headed hos"? Imus was fired for the latter, as I am sure you know.

If being called on offensive behavior is "damaging," most people will consider the predictable consequences of what they say before they open their mouths. After all, no one is "protected" from damage to their reputations or careers for the things they say. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

In conclusion, it's fine if you disagree with the laws as they stand, but unless you plan on amending the constitution to prohibit public representatives from taking positions on public concerns, there's simply no legal basis for the objections that you raise.

stephanie
10-05-2007, 11:04 PM
Actually, whether they can do so is exactly the point. It's the difference between living in the US and living in virtually any other country.



What "federal crime" did the SF Board of Supervisors accuse Savage of in their resolution? Please point this out.



If being called on offensive behavior is "damaging," most people will consider the predictable consequences of what they say before they open their mouths. After all, no one is "protected" from damage to their reputations or careers for the things they say. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

In conclusion, it's fine if you disagree with the laws as they stand, but unless you plan on amending the constitution to prohibit public representatives from taking positions on public concerns, there's simply no legal basis for the objections that you raise.

Being called on your so called offensive speech is fine....WHEN IT ISN'T YOUR OWN GOVERMENT DOING IT...

These people don't like listening to him, they have the same option as the rest of us....Turn him off.

TheyLive
10-06-2007, 10:47 AM
Being called on your so called offensive speech is fine....WHEN IT ISN'T YOUR OWN GOVERMENT DOING IT...

OK, then you can go ahead and denounce the House of Representatives, which 1) is our government; and, 2) passed a resolution on offensive speech just last week. Now let's hear you backpedal and explain why this permissible when it applies to groups you don't agree with (your rationalizations of "special status" have no legal basis). I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.


These people don't like listening to him, they have the same option as the rest of us....Turn him off.

Nor are they bound to silence.

April15
10-06-2007, 12:46 PM
So stifling free speech does not concern you?

Yet at the same time, libs wail and moan about the theoretical loss of civil liberties form the Patriot Act. What a sad country we are turning into.You misunderstand my meaning. I think he should be able to rant adnauseum. I could care less. No one should care. He is a pimple on the ass of the world. Full of it!