Jonathan Turley: England Reaffirms Ban on Radio Host Michael Savage

[alp227]

England now appears to have reaffirmed the decision and accuses Savage of promising to retract some of his statements and failing to do so. While I strongly disagree with many of Savage’s statements, I view the ban as part of a disturbing trend limiting free speech in the West and particularly in England.

In the communication below, Treasury Solicitor Michael Atkins tells counsel for Savage that he previously assured the government that Savage would repudiate some of his comments on his website. It also says that Savage promised to appeal the earlier decision and failed to do so.

Savage was informed last July that the Cameron administration would continue the prior ban on his entry into the country unless he repudiated statements made on his broadcasts that were considered a threat to public security. The very notion of ideas being a threat to public safety is the hallmark of censorship and governmental abuse. While then–British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith insisted that it is “important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here,” he omitted free speech.

The most recent letter is equally disturbing. It puts the burden on Savage to show that his ideas are not a threat to public security — a ridiculous burden when the only way to do so appears to be the repudiation of his beliefs and ideas.

More: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/25/england-reaffirms-ban-on-radio-host-michael-savage/

The letter (3 pages): http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/savage-letter.pdf

[mmonk]

1. Good for them.

If we'd ban these SOB's from untruthful hateful speech pretending to be political discussion here, we might could fix our country.

[alp227]

3. I'm not sure if I totally agree with you...it's a free speech vs. public threats issue

After Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot, initial speculation was that rabid right-wing hate speech influenced the shooter Jared Loughner...turned out it was mostly because of mental issues rather than politics.

Thing is, does good government ban all speech that might be misconstrued as a call for violence?

And I bet that sometime on his radio show Savage whined about how America lets in all those illegal aliens yet he can't legally go to England. What about the position that immigration is a right, if I recall correctly that is supported by the UN. And of course the UN supports free speech too as an international standard.

[mmonk]

5. I don't really expect many to agree with me.

When the 1st amendment was written, it was written in an age where there was no broadcast media and was designed so that persons who had grievances with government could speak freely and could also assemble and air them. I don't feel modern dishonest hate speech on the radio directed at persons not available to defend themselves fits the intent for the 1st amendment.

[AlabamaLibrul]

6. I agree with you. Federally regulated airwaves = not free speech. Pretty much by definition. nt

[truebrit71]

8. Well I agree with you.

The Constitution was written a very long time ago, and the issues that they were facing back then, have changed over time. Back then everyone having a gun made a shit-ton of sense, now, not so much.

[alp227]

9. ironically those who believe in "original intent" don't hold that POV

My interpretation of the First Amendment is that it protects all speech except obscenity and violent threats.

[mmonk]

11. His speech is incendiary without merit towards other people

via a device he can communicate to millions on without rebuttal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I doubt the UN says that immigration is a right

because there's hardly a country in the world that takes that attitude.

If you're thinking of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

But there is not right to enter another country apart from asylum. And while it says there's the right to freedom of opinion and expression, it doesn't say there's a right to travel everywhere in order to express that opinion in person.

[Joe Fields]

2. England is not part of the U.S.

They have every right to censor Savage. IMO, he abuses the right of free speech. I think he should be censored here in the U.S.

[mn9driver]

4. Britain has centuries of historical examples of what can happen when inciteful speech isn't checked.

Jews, Catholics, Protestants, foreigners, Royalists, Parliamentarians, have all been mob killed, executed and in some cases exterminated over the years due to speakers who riled up the people. Sometimes such speech might have been justified, but many more times it was not. Savage's statements clearly fall into the category of incitement and most of his worst ones are demonstrably untrue.

Britain has every right to keep this idiot out. It only took a thousand years, but they may have learned some things that we in the US have not.

[truebrit71]

7. I wholeheartedly disagree with Prof Turley.

Savage's words are hate-speech and as such are banned. He hasn't backed away from anything he has said so he gets to stay banned.

Fuck him, and good for the Brits!