May 12 2009
SHOULD MICHAEL SAVAGE BE BANNED FROM U.K.
The short answer is the right answer, NO.
In this country (U.S.A.), we have guaranteed rights to speak up, speak out , and speak often. Our only restriction is that our words do not cause harm to others and their property. The standard example given is you can not run into a crowded theater and yell fire when you know none exists.
You can’t call for someone to be physically harmed or killed either. You can be held just as legally responsible for those actions as the person that did it. People get charged everyday with conspiracy for doing such a thing.
In the past few years, I have listened to Mr. Savage often. I have never heard him call for any physical harm to come to anyone. I have not heard, on any occasion, him call for the actual death or destruction of any person or property.
I have heard him call for boycotts and investigations into organizations such as C.A.I.R. (Council on American-Islamic Relations). He has also had some very vocal disagreements with other people, politicians, and organizations in the news. You know when you are listening to Michael, he is a very intelligent and well rounded individual. He does sometimes deliver his message in a very bold and argumentative manner, but he is always well versed on the subject matter. He is able to communicate in such a way, whether you agree or disagree with him, you understand his view point. In the American radio business, it is all about the ratings. If you do not have the numbers that the stations management wants you to have, you will not be on the air very long. He has been on the radio for the last 15 years, and his program can now be heard on more than 300 radio stations nationwide. You may think by reading this that I am one of his biggest fans. I’m not. I do respect him and his opinions, but don’t agree with everything he states on his program. I did, however, thank him in the back of my book for keeping me informed and entertained, because that is what he is to me; entertaining and informative. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan lifted the “Fairness Doctrine.” What this doctrine did was force radio and television stations to permit people to come on the airwaves and give opposing opinions to previously aired commentary. If they did not permit someone with a differing opinion to do so, they could lose their license from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and be out of business. Since its lifting, the talk show format on radio and television has flourished. In radio alone, it has grown from as little as 250 stations prior to the fairness doctrine, to as many as 2,000 stations offering this format post doctrine. It has created more careers and jobs than could have ever been anticipated or expected. If the “Fairness Doctrine” was in place 20 years ago, there most likely would not be a Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, or even a Curtis Sliwa today. Yet, it is Michael that gets the honor of a mark by his name. It’s interesting that someone in the British government would put his name in the not welcomed column, when his radio program does not air on any of the public radio stations in Great Britain. I would be shocked to find out that he had a large enough fan base there before Ms. Smith’s banning, to warrant such an investigation into his character. I, as an American, have a question for Jacqui Smith: What investigative process did you use, in your expertise, to determine that Michael Savage deserves to be in the same category as a Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan; murderers already in prison in Russia; and other well known terrorist that have caused the deaths and injuries to a countless number of innocent men, women, and children? If I were to renew my expired passport, would I now be an undesirable not welcomed in England after writing this blog post? I have often heard that there is no such thing as bad publicity. I wonder if Jacqui Smith would agree with that statement now? HAVE FUN. BE SAFE. BE AWARE.
