Top attorney backs Savage against San Fran official

www.wnd.com ^ | World Net Daily

[dynachrome]

One of the nation's top civil rights attorneys has offered his assistance in suing a San Francisco city supervisor who attacked nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage for his tough stance against illegal immigration.

Daniel A. Horowitz of Oakland, Calif., wrote to Savage after Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval introduced a resolution condemning the radio talker urging him to sue the official, whom he compared to Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Hugo Chavez in the way he attempted to silence political speech by rallying the mob.

[dynachrome]

Love Savage or hate him, this is the beginning of Hugo Chavez type censoring.

[dynachrome]

Didn’t see it anywhere, so I thought I would post it.

[sirchtruth]

I’m for going after these people criminally/civilly every time they try to foist their usurping unlawful dictums on society.

[GOP Poet]

I would like to see Michael follow through with this as I believe many people who oppose illegal immigration and speak out about it are battling this sort of slander and 'intolerance'.

This is definately a moment to say, no more and I am going to do something about it. Others will soon follow and continue to. It is time to fight or let these libbies take out many of our first ammendment rights, especially over the radio.

[EricT.]

Sounds like a good way to remind the commielibtards what country we live in.

[dynachrome]

Mexican Comrade
GERARDO.SANDOVAL@SFGOV.ORG or 415-554-6975

[only1percent]

This is the resolution on Supervisor Sandoval's site.

I don't see any legal claim here. The City isn't doing anything or proposing to do anything to hinder Savage's speech. It is perfectly constitutional for the government to have a point of view -- i.e., it's not "hate speech" for President Bush to attack al-Qaeda, or for Congress to pass the Defense of Marriage Act.

The "whereas" reference to the protest demanding that he be fired could give rise to a claim if Savage were actually fired, but only if there was some plausible connection -- i.e. if the inclusion of the clause were deemed to be a threat to withdraw City advertising or some other economic incentive to fire him.

Frankly, the time that the Board of Supervisors spends on this resolution is very well spent from a conservative point of view, given that the Board's political proclivities assure that 99% of the other things it might spend the time on would have a more directly negative impact upon public welfare.

[whereasandsoforth]

**”don’t see any legal claim here. The City isn’t doing anything or proposing to do anything to hinder Savage’s speech.”**

His suit will have at least as much validity as the city’s resolution. They are singling Savage out for ridicule. He has a very good case.

[only1percent]

He’s a public figure. Anyone is free to ridicule him, government officials included.

[AndyJackson]

That this speech is deemed by the Board as symbolic of hatred and racism which is neither endorsed nor tolerated by the City and County of San Francisco; and, be it

I think he has a suit. The SF Board of Supervisors is doing more than expressing an opinion. They are legislatively convicting him of a crime, an act that exceeds the discretion of their offices.

[Blacksheep]

Is it possible the bottled water industry would have a case against the city of San Francisco?
The Mayor came out hard against the product and made numerous false claims. He also said that San Frans tap water was great quality and then said water filtration units where OK for city workers.
So much for the claim the tap water was OK if they need filtration units!

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Heard Savage tonight. His interview with his lawyer sounds like they are going to have the balls of the morons in SF.

[khnyny]

I don’t always agree with Savage’s views, but I respect his right to voice his opinions. That being said, it certainly seems like free speech is being attacked. For instance, Harold Ford’s vicious bashing today of Free Republic on the Sean Hannity radio show.

The powers that be have gone from ingoring talk radio and the internet to being on the defensive. Big time.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1880627/posts

[AndyJackson]

Is it possible the bottled water industry would have a case against the city of San Francisco?

Did the Board of Supervisors pass a resolution declaring itself of the opinion that bottled water companies were violating the law?

[Bonaparte]

Sandoval’s resolution accuses Savage of racism and of defamation. That, in itself, is defamatory because they can’t prove that in court. Savage should sue.

[Califreak]

Agreed. Supervisor should be charged with inciting a riot if one happens as a result of his communist brain fart, if not removed from office for the brain fart itself. People like that in power are very dangerous. If he gets mad, he probably won’t stop at Savage.

According to a lady who called Savage today, she spoke with the supe’s office. Whoever answered the phone had no idea what was going on, and when the lady brought up the 1st amendment, they hung up on her.

The decent people of San Francisco are to be pitied for having such pathetic leadership.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

FYI, Sandoval is the flaming idiot who went on Hannity & Colmes and stated very factually that America should NOT have a military. I kid you not...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184951,00.html

The exchange from the above link goes like this...

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: This is Alan in New York. Should we not have military?

SANDOVAL: I don’t think we should have a military. Absolutely.

COLMES: We shouldn’t have a military? Wait a minute. Hold on. The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: What good has it done for us in the last five years? That’s right. What good has it done us...

HANNITY: Good grief.

SANDOVAL: ... in the last five years.

COLMES: Gerardo, wait a second.

SANDOVAL: We think about the billions that we’re spending in Iraq right now, if we spend it on schools. We should not...

COLMES: The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: That’s correct.

COLMES: Are you kidding me?

SANDOVAL: The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape.

COLMES: You’ve got to be kidding me. We should have no military, we should have no ability to defend ourselves, we should have no armed forces in this country?

SANDOVAL: Well, we shouldn’t have a military that goes abroad and starts wars.

COLMES: You just said we shouldn’t have a military. I don’t want to give — I’m speaking out very forcefully to you, because I don’t want to give the impression that Democrats hate the military or don’t want a military. We may disagree with certain wars, like the ones fought now.

SANDOVAL: No, but you said should we give up.

COLMES: But to say that we shouldn’t have a military is absolutely absurd. It’s incredible. That’s a ridiculous fringe point of view.

HANNITY: That’s exactly what I was thinking, Alan. Welcome to San Francisco.

SANDOVAL: If you’re saying that we don’t have a right to defend ourselves that’s different from we shouldn’t have a military.

COLMES: What do you want to defend ourselves — what do you want to defend ourselves with?

SANDOVAL: Well, you got cops. It’s called the Coast Guard. There’s lots of things different.

COLMES: You want to send cops to defend our shores if we’re attacked? You want to send cops overseas if we’re attacked? Cops?

[Bonaparte]

"The decent people of San Francisco are to be pitied for having such pathetic leadership."

True.

[Califreak]

I just went on Savage’s website and the supes actually commended Hugo Chavez recently. They are very dangerous folk all the way around.

[Exton1]

The commie has also called for 300 illegal aliens to protest, two days in a row, they are being bussed up from the south. Government cannot do that, its intimation of those who speak out against criminal aliens.