Michael Savage: I'll sue if advertisers are pressured to pull out!

Geez. So according to Revtim if the KKK had a decent share of the market we should allow them to have their own talk show!

I guess that’s a difference (a pleasant difference at that) between America and Canada. We try not to let economic determination usurp human rights.

Of course. I believe in freedom even for those viewpoints I find abhorrant.

Borderline is exactly the word, Revtim. If you feel personally insulted, you have as much apology as that rather mild jab deserves. As far as these tactics being used against shows I agree with, as one who has long held unpopular opinions, that is a prospect with little dread.

Revtim, these tactics have been used against shows I agree with for decades.

I’m excited about the fact that the tactics are being turned against the people who’ve used them for years. I’d love to have both sides agree to never use them again, but as long as one side is using advertiser pressure to influence the balance of debate, it only makes sense for the other side to do the same. That way, the balance is restored.

Why? Such freedom clearly infringes the rights of many of Savage’s fellow Americans. Is unconditional freedom worth the price to the groups he attacks?

No boycotts in Canada? Nobody writes advertisers? Shows with no viewers stay on forever? There are no controversial shows? Which human rights?

Your cryptic condemnation has me intrigued.

It was clearly a jab at me, and not my arguments, which I consider out of place in a rational debate.

In any case, it’s clear that this is an issue of opinion, and debate is useless. I find that that driving shows one disagrees with off the air by scaring advertising a crummy and cowardly thing to do for reasons I stated too many times, and you guys think it’s OK. No point in wasting any more electrons on trying to change each other’s opinions.

My point specifically refers to our hate speech laws. I was trying to point out that if someone like Savage was capable of getting 90% of the audience in Canada he would still not find himself on the air. (At least not on network television. Perhaps on an American speciality channel).

No, the groups he “attacks” have no right not be criticized. And yes, whatever price they pay for being criticized if far, far, far less than the worth of freedom. (It’s not quite unconditional, by the way)

And how are consumers demanding that he not be given a platform not also “consumer demand”?

Why do you see more value or legitimacy in more people finding a show utterly boring, and therefore causing it to be taken off the air, than in people finding a show utterly repugnant, and therefore causing it to be taken off the air? (And by the way, repugnant not merely because the views expressed therein are objectionable or offensive, but because they are downright hateful, and advocating of hate.)

And they are, it’s just a different form of demand. (And I don’t know if I’d call it “democratic”, so much as “capitalistic”. )

Here ya go again with the “They think they know better what ought…” stuff. That is a truly peculiar way of framing it, I have to tell you.

And why do you keep using the word “cowardly”? What’s so cowardly about it?

After preview…

So do I. I was all for the ACLU protecting the march in Skokie. As a fellow citizen of this fair and fairly free land, I just don’t see anything wrong with using the market as a tool to prevent those views from being spewed all over television. That generally amounts to a formal declaration to those with the power to decide of “If you’re gonne be * his * friend, then I’m not gonna play with you anymore!” (A technique most girls perfected around age 7) If they like him better then they like me, then they can still choose to play with him instead of me.

They have their decisions to make, I have mine. And, because this land is free, I am free to decide that not only will I not watch his vomitous program, I won’t buy the products of the sponsors who pay for him to be on the air. And I’m also free to ** tell them ** that this is my decision. They are still exactly as free as they were before to do whatever the hell they like.

Freedom is good.

Revtim, we are not talking about simple criticisms here. I assume you’ve read some of his speech. This stuff is full of hate, and has the potential of arousing some very dangerous feelings in those who listen. It legitimizes the views of some extremely racist, xenophobic, and homophobic groups. In my opinion, it actually infringes on their rights to life and liberty.

You may think I’m blowing these things out of proportion. But members of the groups he attacks already face elevated risks of violence and abuse by the ignorant and uneducated. He is doing more than just criticizing these people, he’s fanning the flames…

Got it, I think. Savage could not be on one of the main Canadian channels, but “hate speech” is OK on a US cable channel available to Canadians? Do you get MSNBC?

MSNBC today at 5 PM. Is this his first show?

Not necessarily. I’m pretty smart…doesn’t mean people who may be less smart than me are stupid. :smiley: (dont’ be offended, Boris just lurves me)

Aw now, don’t be that way! That’s what we’re here for!

Well, now, I think that’s terrible. As disgusting as Savage is, I’m still grateful to live in a country where he can be heard if people want to listen.

I don’t get MSNBC, but I wish I did because I would love to watch. Perhaps MSNBC will have reined him in as was done to Dr. Laura.

I’m not sure how the situation with this show is being handled in Canada. I know we received Dr. Laura, but her anti-homphobic content was much more subtle and harder to spot on her day-time TV show. Savage will likely be more overt. However, if MSNBC is carrying him there is unfortunately little that Canada can do to keep him out.

I think that’s terrible that you think that’s terrible :slight_smile:

Do you approve of majority/mob rule in every circumstance? If so, then I suppose you can justify your countries history of slavery. At the time, everyone (everyone important at least) supported slavery. So that made it okay, right?

Part of living in a civilized society involves protecting minority groups who may not be able to protect themselves.

It’s been acknowledged that freedom of speech in America is not unconditional. Welll, where do you guys draw the line then if not at inciting hatred against the disadvantaged?

Why, yes it is, bo989. Freedom of speech means that I will support the right of the KKK to march and speak in public all they want. For, after all, next time, it might be something I favor that someone tries to block. It’s the cornerstone of american freedoms, you see, the ability to speak freely. Now, in this case, both Savage and the peitioners are using their ability to speak freely. It’s not like the tactic hasn’t been tried before, for example, there was a mass boycott of Ellen, if I recall correctly, led by the Reverend Don Wildmon. And it’s his right to say what he wants, and I can say what I want, and then people can decide what they feel about things.

The slavery analogy was a little strong. Let me know if I’ve misunderstood your position Stoid, as I dont’ want to offend.

At least he didn’t invoke the First Amendment, that infallible indicator of ignorance in a dispute between two private parties.

That’s more than can be said for many media figures not so clear on the distinction between governmental limits on speech and private economic consequences of speech. See, e.g., this leading constitutional scholar, who’s pretty sure David Wells should have taken the Yankee management to court on grounds of “free speech” when he was fined for making comments embarrassing to the organization:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/michael_silver/news/2003/03/13/open_mike/

At least, as Tom outlined, state and federal competition and commercial tort laws arguably make Savage’s claim one that could be non-frivolously asserted, assuming he could marshal the facts regarding anti-competitive intent and effect, market power, etc. of his adversaries.

The difference is that in the situation where you have a show that is successful enough to stay on the air, the people that like it are denied the right to watch an economically successful show they like, if it were left alone.

Why can’t people just turn the channel and let other watch what they want without interfering? The key to discounting asses like Savage is to counter their arguments, not shut your ears to them.

But it’s obvious these boycotters feel they know better than the viewer the show, right? “It’s an evil show! Nobody should be watching it! I’m obviously smarter than that trog that actually agrees with that jackass host! I’m writing a letter to Hostess Snacks telling them I’m not buying Ho-Hos until they stop supporting views I disagree with!” They are clearly making the choice of the viewer’s viewing habits for him, as if he is too stupid or doesn’t have the right to make up his or her own mind.

It’s incredibly cowardly to try to chase off viewpoints you disagree with, and to try and stop other from hearing them.

In my opinion, there is a difference between a march and a talk show. I would support a KKK march as well, but I would never support a KKK talk show. Television has some social responsibilites, at least in Canada. They add legitimacy to whatever views they broadcast. Big name advertisers further that legitimacy. It is the legitimacy which is dangerous and needs to be held in check.