A left coast politician is heaping San Francisco values on Michael Savage, but who's the real villain?
Patriotism might at one time have been the last refuge of a scoundrel, but methinks this is no longer true. With modern America being characterized more by political correctness than patriotism, screams of “racism” may now be that last refuge. And joining the ranks of scoundrels, populated by reverends sans congregations and other assorted guttersnipes, is one Gerardo Sandoval, San Francisco Supervisor.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Baronius
Savage is a real low-class creep. It sounds like Sandoval is, too. Sandoval is wrong about the claim of racism. There are some people who are so obsessed with race that they see racism everywhere. I doubt that Sandoval was race-baiting; he probably just assumes that anyone with an opposing viewpoint is racist.
Even if Sandoval were right about Savage's statement, he shouldn't use the government to rebuke a private citizen. Selwyn's right that we should support Savage. I just hope that doesn't include listening to his show, because he's awful.
27 - Dr Dreadful
brucebruce:
What has the Mississippi Educational Computing Association ever done to you?
28 - Nancy
The irony is, from what I can see, Sandoval is the racist. Look at all the racially-based things he's part of. A pot calling a kettle black? As for Sharpton lending his credibility *snort* BWAHAHAHAHAHA-! Sharpton has NO credibility with anyone except the brain-dead, or as Nalle terms them, the ignorant volatile masses.
29 - David
I agree with most of what Michael Savage says politically speaking however I do believe he would have more support among other radio personalities if he said less about them. He does seem to be a bit out-of-control sometimes. I hate to say this but does the name Wally George mean anything to you?
30 - streetfighter
You now have government against the people.
Fight this now. San Francisco is lost-"Coming events precast its future" is something for the rest of America to pay attention to.
Vote these people out of office or is that too late.......
31 - Dave Nalle
ignorant volatile masses
I don't believe I've actually ever called them that, but I may borrow it in the future.
Dave
32 - kelli
I know im going to be at the bottom of this thing so mine might not even be read. But if it is, I just want people to know what I have to deal with on a daily basis with these illegal aliens. First of all, I have to depend on public transportation to get to work and school. Wherever i go through Oakland and Alameda, it feels like im in a 3rd world country. I am constantly horrassed by the perverted illegals, i see them urinate and crap everywhere as they stand against the fences to wait for someone to pick them up to go do illegal jobs. They laugh in our face as they wrap the mexican flag around their body and walk around with it like they are trying to prove a point. Why is this happening? How did the liberals let it get this bad. Last month my best friend's nine year old niece got hit by a car and died. The car was driven by an illegal alien. This is crazy. And now these murderer's, thieve's, and rapist's want to demand citizenship? Liberal's make me sick. They all need to be put to sleep. I support the Savage Nation, and I will till the day I die. I pray everynight that Michael Savage will become president, and put a stop to all this bulls**t. I hate scandoval. Maybe he should be a polititian in mexico, take all his illegal friends, and la raza with him. GOD BLESS AMERICA
33 - STM
WIN: "In the U.S. there simply CANNOT be laws restricting freedom of speech."
You are wrong. I suggest you go and look at some of the Supreme Court's rulings in regard to this. There is some speech over the years that is not protected under the 1st amendment. Like I say, it's never been carte-blanche stuff. I've done my homework on this over a period of years through my work, perhaps you could at least do us all the courtesy of getting your head around ideas that go beyond what you learned in grade school.
Supreme Court of the United States: Chaplinsky v New Hampshire is a really good place to start, and go from there. It at least affirms that the right to free speech is not absolute. And it still amazes me that many Americans don't understand the laws of their own country and will blindly trot out out this belief that there are no laws against "free speech" in the US.
Well, in reality that part is actually true - it's what constitutes free speech protected under the 1st amendment that is the issue, and many Americans don't understand where the line is drawn at law.
It also makes me laugh that people like WIN blithely assume I'm a "liberal" for challenging their misguided beliefs, when in fact the opposite is true if the definition used in my country is a yardstick.
34 - STM
DD wrote: "Treasonous dogs?"
In reality, Doc, from our altered perspective, aren't all Americans to be considered "treasonous dogs" (even your wife and my mates), particularly having gone against their blood ties to get into bed with the duplicitous French in the form of that fragrant nancy-boy Lafayette, and all in pursuit of a spurious end - the setting up of a Republic founded by traitors, rebels and - worse - Frenchmen.
Having shaken off the benevolent protections of the Crown, don't 300 million Americans thus remain, even to this day, "traitorous dogs".
I find it interesting, too, that at school I was taught people like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were traitors rather than heroes, which runs directly opposite to the American view.
There is only one thing for it: all such traitors must hang from the yard arm or rot in jail (and eat gruel).
Only the good citizens of the Dominion of British West Florida will be spared.
35 - STM
And in regard to that treasonous flag, you know my feelings on those silly stars. They should be replaced by a nice Union Jack.
36 - Tom
Many good wishes Mike, we love you here in Tucson!
37 - Dr Dreadful
#32:
I hate bad fiction.
38 - Dr Dreadful
at school I was taught people like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were traitors rather than heroes
That's strange, Stan, because I wasn't taught that, and I'm actually from the country they were allegedly traitors against. Come to think of it, we were barely taught about that period at all. Touchy subject, I suppose. Kind of like when you don't really want to talk about the big game your team's just lost.
The key facts we were taught about George Washington were: (1) He was named after a town in County Durham (2) He cut a tree down.
And the tree incident definitely lowered him in my estimation. I mean, he cuts it down and then, when his dad has a conniption about it, 'fesses up. What was he thinking? Any boy knows that when your parent asks who did the bad thing... YOU BLAME IT ON YOUR BROTHER!!!
What a thicko.
39 - BR
This to STM "sitting in Sydney, Australia": you speak rubbish my friend. Free speech, in the context of this issue (Michael Savage) is certainly protected and it is not in any way "over-ruled" by some amendment to the U.S. Constitution which you pulled out of thin air:
"the right not to be villified ... in your own country". What in the H*&L are you on?
40 - STM
You could have a point there Doc. Perhaps I'm getting confused with that other traitor, George Washingmachine, who used to go out with a girl from work.
Although, I think you have to understand this from a perspective other than yours Doc. Us, having remained loyal and willing to sacrifice everything for the cause (and crucially, having allowed you to use the corner of our flag as your own), may well look upon those who turned on the Crown with something less than admiration :)
41 - STM
BR writes: "the right not to be villified ... in your own country". What in the H*&L are you on?"
Mate, read the whole thing. Go back and look at the other posts in full and then have a read of your own constitution. Having spent some years studying it, I discovered that is more than most Americans have. You do not have absolute rights in the US to say whatever you want. That is a fact, and there's not getting around it.
Evidence: Like I say, if you have a library in Doodad County, you could start with Supreme Court of the United States: Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, then go for some more rulings, past and more recent around free speech and the 1st and 14th amendments - there are quite a few.
Then come back to me and tell me I'm the one who doesn't know. And while you're reading the stuff to yourself, remember mate, it's best not to move your mouth at the same time.
42 - Dr Dreadful
Trust me, mate, the willingness of you Matildas to stand alongside us and defend the Empire/Commonwealth/monarch/what have you, in any given conflict, is not lost on us in the Mother Country.
Although you blokes do get a bit overenthusiastic sometimes. I mean Vietnam, for instance. How the heck did we let you get involved in that one without us?
43 - STM
Those bloody "traitorous dogs" talked us into it. They tempted us with a bone and we (and they) found it was more than we could chew through.
However, the one part of this debate where I don't have my tongue planted firmly in my cheek is the bit where people like WIN and BR, failing to understand their own law, misguidedly believe they can say what they like under constitution of the United States and do so without fear or favour.
IMO, it's a really dangerous fallacy and one that leads to all kinds of problems and misunderstandings. I'm also baffled that many Americans who can reel offthe 1st and 2nd Amendments verbatim, know nothing about the 9th amendment - the one that quite clearly says the Constitution of the US should not be taken to be the whole law of the United States.
I also believe that free speech as the founding fathers intended did not mean such things as racist, vilifying speech (which isn't free speech at all) but rather the opportunity always to voice your concerns and grievances in a socially acceptable way for the good of all.
44 - Dr Dreadful
I interpret it in a slightly different way. The First Amendment does indeed guarantee your right to say any idiot thing you want; however, it does not insure against the consequences of so doing, especially if they infringe against someone else's right to protection under the law.
Also, although the Constitution is indeed not the whole law, it does trump congressional and state laws if the two are in conflict. I think it was Marbury v Madison which first established this principle.
45 - STM
In any debate on this, it is crucial to go back to the "fighting words doctrine" of Chaplinsky (a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court).
Off the top of my head, it stated in part that there are certain classes of speech (and hate speech might indeed now fall into that category) that are not protected under the 1st amendment to Constitution, and never have been. While the critera has narrowed somewhat in more recent judgments as this was a ruling made in the early 1940s, it still exists to serve as a poignant warning to citizens of the US during these current debates in relation to what their obligations are under the law.
The other classic example here in regard to free speech and free thought in the US is McCarthyism: The right attacking those they believed to have leftist or communist-sympatheic views (which in many cases couldn't be regarded as seditious). Indeed, there was a clear violation of 1st amendment rights (and lots of other rights) in many such cases.
46 - STM
Do you think we've rooted up Selwyn's thread yet?
Seen any decent cricket/rugby/soccer matches lately Doc?
47 - STM
US Supreme Court - The Chaplisnky v New Hampshire ruling (in part): "[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances.
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.
"These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting"words - those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
48 - Doug Hunter
"The right attacking those they believed to have leftist...Indeed, there was a clear violation of 1st amendment rights (and lots of other rights) in many such cases."
A great reason NOT to have laws abridging free speech. A person's opinion on the rightness of the said law speaks more to their personal politics than to any notions of principle in most cases. In America, STM would be on the left hence he condemns rightwing attempts at limiting speech while supporting leftist imposes PC speech. Very predictable and a bit unnerving.
Leftists still see Mcarthyism as wrong despite the fact that communism toppled dozens of governments, put hundreds of millions in poverty, and resulted in the greatest genocides in history even dwarfing those of the much hated Hitler.
If it's OK to openly advocate an ideology that has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people and silenced, intimidated, and jailed many more for political views then it should be OK to talk about immigration issues without fear of government reprisal.
49 - Silver Surfer
I agree with virtually everything you've said, and in particular about laws not abridging free speech. Just like Americans, I won't tolerate living in a country either where I don't have the right of free speech. However, I'm in agreement with the kind of "fighting words" doctrine handed down by the US Supreme Court (and with similar laws here) in the judgment above and which now forms a very important part of US law that most Americans aren't aware of - truth is, some things just can't be protected because they are of no social value at all in the good, orderly running of a country founded on rule of law. Indeed, they fulfil the opposite function.
And that rule in my book would apply to those on either side of the political fence, so you've lost on that one Doug as far as assuming that I'm a leftist and therefore one-eyed in regard to this. In the case of McCarthysim, there's also a very clear distinction there between a witch-hunt that stripped people of nearly all their constitutional rights, and the use of "fighting words" (and possibly now, what is known as hate speech) as detailed in that Chaplinsky case.
50 - Brenda
I agree with Michael Savage;furthermore,as a Black American, I am outraged that hispanics compare themselves to Black Americans. Black slave labor built America. Illegal immigrants have done nothing but made debt for America. Illegals must be rounded up and deported. America is looking more and more like a third world country everyday especially California. Hispanics are the down fall of America. I live in Antioch, California,AND CAN'T WAIT UNTIL MY HUSBANDS JOB TRANSFERS US OUT OF CALIFORNA. I don't feel like I'm living in America. Illegals are filthy. My husband and I are true believers of most of what Michael Savage says. Michael Savage is saying what most American Citizens are thinking.
Thank You Michael
51 - troll
*I'm in agreement with the kind of "fighting words" doctrine handed down by the US Supreme Court...which now forms a very important part of US law that most Americans aren't aware of...*
Stan - are you referring to some 'part of US law' other than state and municipal codes criminalizing disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace and libel - ?
52 - Dr Dreadful
Do you think we've rooted up Selwyn's thread yet?
Seen any decent cricket/rugby/soccer matches lately Doc?
I've tried, what with the pirate thing and the Not the Nine O'Clock News video link and all, but somehow we still keep coming back to Savage.
I haven't watched much sport lately, unfortunately. I finally got satellite TV but somehow missed out on the package which includes all the international sport channels.
I am, however, rather pleased at Newcastle United's strong start to the Premier League season. Only one game played so far, though. Don't want to get carried away.
53 - Dr Dreadful
Chris:
The "kelli" at comment 32 and the "Brenda" at comment 50 wouldn't happen to have come from the same URL, would they?
Just wondering.
54 - troll
*Do you think we've rooted up Selwyn's thread yet?
Seen any decent cricket/rugby/soccer matches lately Doc?
I've tried, what with the pirate thing and the Not the Nine O'Clock News video link and all, but somehow we still keep coming back to Savage.*
imo you guys should check yourselves on these despicably cute acts of distraction...your openly conspiratorial attempts to silence folks who foolishly voice distasteful notions in opposition to your own melba toast views of life in the polis reflect poorly on trolls
55 - Christopher Rose
Doc:- No, they don't. And it's IP address, not URL!
56 - Dr Dreadful
Thanks, Chris. The... er... sentiments sounded suspiciously similar, as did the locations the commenter(s) claimed to be at. Styles were a bit different, though.
Also, thanks for the correction on the technical lingo. IP, URL, ROTFLMFAO, whatever. You know I don't understand these newfangled typewriter-televisions!
57 - Savage Fan
Magikthrice, you are wrong about the reason Michael Savage bashes the othere talk show hosts. The reason he does it is because they are frauds pure and simple. Savage is the only mainsream conservative commentator that doesn't agree at all with the way George Bush is conducting the war in Iraq among other things Bush does. He has every right to show these people for what they really are. Remember when Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham...etc went to the White House for a meeting BEFORE the elections? Remember that screamer? Then just a few weeks ago they did it again!!!!!!!!!!! Why anyone can still listen to them is beyond me. He is exposing them for what they are and that is what Savage so cleverly puts it,"The Government Media Complex".
58 - Savage Fan
By the way Savage was not jealous for not being invited to the White House. He said on his show after both of those events,"I am proud to tell you that I wasn't invited to the White house".
59 - John
Michael Savage must be doing something right since since he is attacked by the left and the "right." I doubt that many of those who criticize him have ever listened to his whole show. As far as criticizng others, Levin criticizes Michael often. Levin, Rush and Hannity are all little more than republican party stooges. Savage certainly isn't for everyone, but the others pale by comparison.
60 - kelli SAVAGETTE !
just becuase we feel the same about feeling like we are in a nasty 3rd world country u think the same person wrote it? um no. two different people. nice try little left wing idiot. im sick of my taxes going to these illegals. im sick of not hearing anyone around me speaking english when i know they are talking shit about me. i dont even bother telling them off cuz they cant understand me anyways. hay idiot liberal..... "NO MAS ILLEGALS!" ha ha. i bet that'll piss off a few libs. you libs are such scum. ill be damned if we have a muslim president. ya that's rite. obama yo mama is a muslim. you know how many hospitals had to close down in san diego because of moron liberals? the liberals said 'treat the illegals that get hurt crossing the border illegally.' who the f**k do you think paid their hospital bill you dumb asses. dumb. so dumb. all liberals need to be put to sleep. seriously. you like seeing American women get horassed by all the little illegals dont you? you like all the identity theft? you like all the spots in schools being stolen from American children? you like knowing how many homisides are done by illegals? you like all the home break-ins, car thefts, all the illegal gang members in california? the answer is yes. you like it. you want to ruin America. not in my lifetime you looooooooooosers. i hate you all. all you liberals can kiss my American ass. i love when people on bart and bus comment on my "savage/coulter '08 "sicker on my bag. say something to me! get mad! i wish you would! you'll be sorry! go to hell all you f**ckin America hating, criminal loving assholes. all of you! and to the SAVAGE NATION: WE CANT LET THESE LEFT WING ASSHOLES DESTROY OUR COUNTRY. KEEP SUPPORTING PRESIDENT SAVAGE!!!!!!!
61 - Dr Dreadful
You should put some Neosporin on those knuckles.
62 - Dan
Savage likes gays and Jerry Brown no need to say more.
63 - G. Hernandez
I just started listening to Dr.Savage recently.(About two months ago) Men like him are few and far between. He is a very intelligent man and I believe he speaks the truth. If he ran for president of the U.S., I would vote for him. Critics of Dr. Savage don't realize what is at stake here. It is our freedom to express ourselves without feeling threatened. I guess they don't love America the way we do. God bless America. And God bless Michael Savage.
64 - STM
Troll: "Stan - are you referring to some 'part of US law' other than state and municipal codes criminalizing disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace and libel - ?"
No troll, a judgment of the US Supreme Court (Chaplisnky v New Hampshire) which ruled 9-0 in 1942 and which still has application today, that certain speech is not, and never was, protected under the 1st amendment to the United States' Constitution.
It has nothing to do with state laws etc once it finds its way to the Supreme Court. It becomes part of US law, as I'm sure you know,That's now on the books and can always be referred to, and indeed is much discussed in US law schools.
Problem is, many Americans who wrongly believe US law is based solely on the constitution and how it is enunciated, don't know about it or understand that the constitution was also designed to cement common law, and therefore misguidedly believe that the 1st amendment gives them an absolute right to say what they wish. It gives them a lot of freedoms, but it's not absolute, and the kind of thing Selwy has written about here may actually fall into that category.
It likely wouldn't hold up in court, as the criteria is quite narrow, but you never know with these things.
How do I know all this? One of my best mates here is an American lawyer who moved to Australia and now practises law here (they are very similar, as both were originally based on the tenets of English law). He helped me in some personal study on the issue of free speech while I was working for the Govt.
65 - christa barakat
I just started listening to Michael Savage about six months ago, I think going to college for criminal justice made me care about what goes on in the world. I absolutly love Michael Savage, in fact my dad who I hardly ever see said he met him before and that is about all we had in common. I am so outraged about illegal immigrants not just hispanics but any decent! I am married to a Arab catholic who is legal and hates the whole thing about illegal immigrants, they went threw the proper channels to come here during the Gulf War. The trem "ILLEGAL" is the plain word that it should not be exceptable! I admire Michael for his education and his strength of speaking the truth no matter what! I wish he was president of the United Staes, I listened to the crazy people who were speaking against him, it made me sick! If they do not like it then go leave or turn this radio station off. We have the right to freedom of speech. I think they are coping off the basketball team that sued the other talk show and got him fired, they really think that they can do someting. They should shut up and be happy they are even here!! I could go on and on, I just turned in a paper for school tonight and I got to do it on anything I wanted for an english class; I did illegal immigration. I Love you Michael! I think I will try to get a job for I.C.E!!
66 - Tesla
Stm, are we supposed to be impressed that a "lawyer" told you these things? You can find lawyers on both sides of every debate, as you may know. There is NO prohibition against "hate speech" (which is a term invented by leftist scum, by the way) in America, and I wouldn't respect or recognize any supreme court decision that divined one from the Constitution.
Keep your hate speech laws along with your vegemite, and stick 'em where the sun don't shine, MATE.
67 - Savage Fan
Right on kelli SAVAGETTE!!!!!!!!!!
Michael Savage for President!!!!!!!!!
68 - STM
Tesla. Having been told these things by a lwayer, he then pointed me to a judgment of the US Supreme Court which is part of US law. I know imbeciles sometimes find it hard to accept things they don't understand, but it's there in black and white. The case is: Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (fuck me, how many times do I have to repeat this for the benefit of idiots).
It says (here we go again) that some speech is not protected and never has been under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, and what it says, goes.
But look, don't take my word for it: go and look it up, if you can work out which buttons to press for google. 1st amendment protections ARE NOT ABSOLUTE (yes, I'm shouting in frustration, much the same way teachers do in remedial classes)
69 - fleshyglassbits
STM, does yelling fire in a movie theater when there is no fire count as freedom of speech? I will answer this for you. No. This is the sort of speech that is not protected under the constitution. It says nothing about "hate" speech, which was not even an issue in this case. Savage merely used sarcasm while making his point, something you as a Brit can surely understand, seeing as the English virtually cornered the market in the fine art of waging sardonic cerebral warfare. Furthermore, I would worry about your precious U.K. and the growing immigration problem that is overwhelming its native anglican culture and heritage before I would point your finger at us. Oh wait a minute, you live in AUstralia now dont you? So, you must already be savvy. Since you now live in Australia- you must also know that a total of 350,000 people left Britain in 2004 - equivalent to a third of the population of Birmingham, god knows what the numbers are in the subsequent years. Don't get me wrong in spite of your opinion of the U.S., I love the English people, I think they are wonderful despite their penchant for socialism and snobbery. But you chaps are in even bigger trouble than we are. cheers
70 - STM
Just out of interest, I know there are dumb people everywhere, but when it comes to general idiocy (and I do understand that doesn't mean everyone), why does America seem so chock-a-block?
Honestly, I just can't understand how people can get on here making blithe comments without understanding that rulings in the highest court of the land hold water in relation to such things as so-called "hate speech", or why challenging misguided perceptions means I have to be branded "a liberal".
The term is different, that's all. In 1942, they called it "fighting words", rather than "hate speech". The two, in many instances, would seem interchangeable and have set a precedent arguable at law no matter what.
Dumb, and dumber ...
71 - STM
Fleshyglassbits: Yes, yelling fire in a movie when there is no fire is one of the things not protected. Another is "fighting words", although they do now fall into a narrow band. And no, I'm not a Brit, but I did go to school there for some years and have lived there since. I like the British people too, especially when they stay out of Australia :)
Please do your homework on what is and isn't protected before telling me I'm wrong.
I can see the only way out of this is to post a link on the case
72 - STM
And BTW fleshy, you are assuming that I don't like the US. You are wrong: I almost moved there a decade ago, but preferred it here. I have visited many times, and my best friend is an American. Actually, I really love the US and (almost) everything it stands for, and Americans are my favourite people outside my own country.
I just find it really difficult arguing with people who, despite the fact they are so vehement, just don't know what they are talking about and assume that because I'm not American I must be wrong.
73 - fleshyglassbits
STM - Yeah, I'm looking in my liberal skewed govt text book right now, and it says the supreme court has recognized other rights implied by the enumerated guarantees of the First Amendment. These include the right to association, even when such association might come in the form of clubs or organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, sex or religion. Also your little Chaplinsky vs Hampshire case "fighting words" was overuled when Steven Klein and the ACLU successfully defeated Abe Yellin and the town of SKokie by defending the use of the swastika by a bunch of marching nazis. The seventh circuit court of appeals said that "it is firmly settled that under our constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas themselves are offensive to some of the hearers."
74 - STM
It still applies, fleshy ... the court continues to uhold it, just with the criteria narrowed.
75 - fleshyglassbits
STM - I guess what would be needed to be proved here is was Savage's words "fighting words". Fighting words are defined as what? I'm asking you because I am not a know it all. I just think that Sandoval has a weak case because if a swastika and a bunch of nazi demonstrators can squeek by, I dont think they have shit on Savage. Remember, Imus was not tried in a court of law. He was tried by the media. This is an entirely different thing. Cheers, and sorry about being so smarmy in my earlier post