Posted on 08/15/2007 2:21:02 PM PDT by pacelvi
A "Savage" Assault on Free Speech Posted by: Michael Medved at 1:08 AM No, I’ve never been a citizen of “The Savage Nation,” and I hardly count as an ardent fan of the bombastic, simplistic, perpetually enraged sort of talk radio exemplified by Michael Savage.
But regardless of my disagreements with the man’s style and substance, he’s absolutely right to stand up to bullying and intimidation by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Whenever a governmental official attempts to silence a journalist or commentator, then all those committed to free speech – whether conservatives, moderates or liberals – ought to protest vigorously against this clear-cut abuse of authority.
If San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval dislikes the content of Michael Savage’s show he’s got a perfect right to go to management of the local station and urge them to drop the program, or to start a petition drive for that purpose, or even to organize a sponsor boycott.
Such protests would enable Sandoval and his leftist allies to use their free speech to answer the free speech of a radio host they find distasteful – the same way Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson used their national platforms to shut down Don Imus because of his notorious “nappy-headed ho’s” remark last April. I happen to believe that the anti-Imus hysteria represented a feverish sort of media insanity and over-reaction, but Imus can’t claim he was victimized by censorship. He faced the pressure of the marketplace and the force of public opinion – not governmental stifling or intimidation. And now Mr. Imus (having agreed to accept $20 million from CBS for their craven breach of his contract) appears poised to make a comeback, not because the government changed policy but because the marketplace and public opinion shifted.
In contrast to the Imus affair, the Sandoval-and-the-Supes attack on Dr. Savage amounts to precisely the sort of governmental meddling that civil libertarians of every stripe ought to resist. Sandoval introduced a formal resolution to the top governing body of San Francisco and his colleagues voted 9 to 1 to condemn Savage for “hate speech” and to demand his firing. The supervisors are entitled to their opinion, but they’re not entitled to abuse their position as elected officials to give those opinions governmental endorsement.
Government bodies on the federal, state and local level should strictly avoid condemning – or endorsing, for that matter – political opinions on controversial matters.
With the strident left clearly losing the battle of ideas, they want to use the power of officialdom to silence their opponents – hence the federal effort to revive the “fairness doctrine” under which bureaucrats would take responsibility for “balancing” broadcast opinion, rather than allowing the audience to pick whichever ideas its members want to hear.
The whole impulse to control, to punish, to stifle reveals shows the totalitarian complexion of contemporary “progressive” thinking. On CNN earlier tonight, I debated another talk show host who believed that Imus deserved a life-time ban from the airwaves because of his crude remarks about the Rutgers basketball team – comments for which he’s apologized lavishly and repeatedly. But at least the unforgiving critics of the much-derided Don haven’t demanded bureaucratic or official sanction to enforce such a ban.
For those who resent Imus or despise Savage, I’ve got a constructive suggestion: why don’t you just go ahead and turn these guys off? But for the sake of sanity and free speech, please avoid any governmental efforts to try to shut them up.
ping. Medved’s defense of Savage from his column at townhall.com.
Thanks for posting this!
Well said...
You don't understand. When it's liberals throwing around every vile accusation and unfounded slander on earth, THAT'S "free speech." When queers invade a Catholic mass and throw condoms at the congregation and spit in the holy water, THAT'S "free speech." When Dan Rather out-and-out LIES about the president's war record, THAT'S "free speech."
However, when a conservative talk show host skewers the liberal pretensions of the day, that's "hate speech" and is NOT protected under the First Amendment.
Comprende?
“all those committed to free speech”
Dunno where Medved gets the idea that leftists are committed to free speech.
But as we all know...no liberal is committed to free speech...
Having had the opportunity to observe these supervisors for some time, I’m convinced they’re not really bright or sophisticated enough to understand the gravity of the crime they’ve committed. Or even to understand that it is a breach of their fiduciary trust, not to mention their oath of office. And it’s no small irony that these morons are among those calling for the President’s impeachment on the charge that he violated his oath of office.
There’s no hope for these cretins.
Your absolutely right. In savage’s case, the city government was taking the side of non-citizens of the United States, which is unprecedented. This story should have been in the national media!
The first step in state-controlled speech is to define what is allowed and what is not allowed. The socialists use the term "hate speech" to define a category of speech not allowed and then they slowly expand it to include political ideas, religious ideas, and any other ideas they don't like or which threaten the socialist agenda.
-PJ
I’m not a huge Savage fan, but this is one more example of how the Left is trying to destroy media venues it can’t control...so I hope he whips their ass.
Nice piece by Medved.
I used to listen to Medved until they replaced him with Savage. Medved was good ,but Savage is better.
Medved is just not bombastic, simplistic, and enraged enough for me.
I also have a section now on my blog labeled freedom - take a look at it sometime - I'll be going though some of my old posts and adding more in the days ahead.
anyway here was what I wrote - if you click you will have all the links to references
Imagine for just a minute the fear of retribution or worse for simply speaking a word or writing something that might possibly offend someone. Not living in the United States and not enjoying the freedoms that my fellow Americans enjoy, I live with this fear daily, each day when I write out my thoughts here.
The fear that you live under is real, the fear that the hand that feeds you will use the powers that it wields to cut of your nourishment. It is the worst kind of fear, the fear that drives you to take a knife and stab yourself in your soul in the hopes that your own self-sacrifice will be enough to stave off the clenched fist.
There have been many times that I have wanted to speak out on certain sensitive issues, many times that I want to write more on important issues and perhaps give a more in-depth story, but each time I am forced to analyze the dire implications and consequences that I will face should I happen to cross "the line". I try to rationalize with myself, I try to be creative at times and perhaps just allude to certain issues in the hope that my readers will be astute enough to read between the lines. This is how self-censorship works.
Self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship because it thrives on hypocrisy, sycophancy, and mendacity. Holding back the tears, there are times when I loath myself for not having the courage as a free man to stand up. But I can rationalize that as well, I think of my family, my friends and my own security and then I say to myself that I am making this self-sacrifice not for myself but for them.
The line is always there for me, It it stationary it does not move and I try hard not to cross it, at times though I do happen to cross that line and I feel my heart race afterwards. On more than one occasion, I have been "reminded" that I have crossed the line. It is always subtle, "we know who you are" or "you can't hide".
Ann Coulter has now crossed 'the line' in America, a line that didn't exist before, a line that is constantly moving lower and lower in the United States. Perhaps no one remembers Eddie Murphy's stand-up routine in the 80's or Dire Straits' song "Money For Nothing".
But as cultural Marxism takes root the United States, things are changing and changing rapidly. What was once considered immoral and obscene when I last lived in the United States is now celebrated. There is no outrage and no one seems to care that Christians are offended on daily basis, but our country's own State department expresses their outrage when a Quran is desecrated.
Championing multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance Americans now promulgate what they consider to be enlightened concepts of progression and yet they have unwittingly embraced a pernicious form of relativism that they don't have the foresight to see will eventually culminate ironically into a new form of intolerance. An intolerance to both freedom and democracy.
I think of the country that I miss and love so dearly and wonder how many people feel the same as Dr. Eddison Richardson who stated that:
"This woman should be arrested. There is no room in a free country for words like this. I believe this could be considered a hate crime and should be treated as such!"
It troubles me knowing that there are many more people like Dr. Richardson in the United States and that their numbers are growing unabated.
But what is even more frightening is how many so-called conservatives can collectively sacrifice one of their own for merely highlighting the hypocrisy that abounds. An offensive "word" and an insinuation is enough for Ann Coulter to be punished. How many more words will we be adding to this ever growing "lexicon of offense"? And how much longer before social order and stability become of paramount importance to Americans, much more so than liberty or freedom?
Is it really such a leap of logic for one to foresee that Americans in the near future will justify sacrificing freedom for security?
---------------------------------------------------------
If i remember correctly the post is from when Coulter called Edwards a “faggot”
I am alternately disgusted and amused by the idiocy of the Left and its prostitutes in the press. And if someone wanted to lynch some of them, I probably would sit by and watch it happen (just reward for offending so many people). But I would never support their being censored by The Government. I AM "the government," and I find our discourse expanded by the lunacy, the sheer paucity of the Left's ideals. Exposed to the harsh light of reality, they either float away like moonbeams or they melt like vampires. They THRIVE in darkness, and sustain themselves in turmoil.
Don't give them that garden to grow in.
I take it you won’t be in favor of “The Fairness in Broadcasting Act”. ;)
(self censorship is right. I censor myself at work frequently. Race is a very touchy issue. The official policy of the company I work for is pro affirmative action. Not being an officer of the company, I do not have to offially support it. If asked, I will not lie about my oppositon to it. I doubt my job would be very safe at that point)
Thanks DC
I listen to them both--I've got multiple personalities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.