Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(World Net Daily)   San Francisco trying to get Michael Savage fired, may be receiving a large lawsuit shortly   ( wnd.com) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

1788 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Aug 2007 at 10:12 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-08-13 06:36:28 PM  
That resolution is nothing more than pandering bullshiat. Thanks, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, for giving this idiot troll exactly what he wants.
 
2007-08-13 06:45:38 PM  
you (Michael Savage) are the victim of the same type of mob terror that (the) Klan used to inflict

Riiiiight.
 
2007-08-13 06:49:24 PM  
The resolution is bullshiat, but there is absolutely no way this legislator has any sort of civil liability at all for it. At the very least, there's legislative privilege. But even absent that, the grounds on which it could supposedly be brought is just horsecrap.
 
2007-08-13 06:54:13 PM  
Another case of "when assholes collide". I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Savage on this one, though. I have no idea if the lawsuit has any legal basis, but it was wrong of the Board of Supervisors to even hear such a resolution.
 
2007-08-13 06:58:05 PM  
Perhaps the good Dr. Weiner could prescribe some herbs to soothe their butthurt.
 
2007-08-13 06:59:54 PM  
I think a more productive use of that city official's time would be to repeatedly stick his thumb up his own ass for eight hours a day until it makes one of those old-timey slidewhistle noises.
 
2007-08-13 07:07:28 PM  
"Translated into legal language, you are being attacked by a type of terrorist because you have exercised your First Amendment rights."

This guy too. All the way up. Knuckle in your lung type of stuff.
 
2007-08-13 07:14:54 PM  
FURTHER RESOLVED, That this speech is deemed by the Board as symbolic of hatred and racism which is neither endorsed nor tolerated by the City and County of San Francisco;

This is directly from the resolution, with my emphasis added. Any resolution can be submitted, and it is meaningless. Should it pass, however, you have a pretty clear case for 1st amendment infringement. The speech Mr. Savage used is very clearly protected, and for any branch of government to state it will not tolerate protected speech is completely unacceptable.

Additionally, he does appear to have a civil case against the city. The government, in condemning his speech, is implicitly infringing on his rights, which could lead to financial loss. (You could also claim the ever popular mental pain and anguish) Legislative privilege should prevent individual members from being directly responsible however.

All in all this resolution is a political nightmare for the people who have to vote on it. If it passes, it invites Mr. Savage to use it for both his own financial, as well as political gain. Should any representative not vote for it, they will be seen as supporting speech which is already been deemed hateful.
 
2007-08-13 07:22:55 PM  
FarkLiter: Should it pass, however, you have a pretty clear case for 1st amendment infringement.

No, you don't. No actual action is being taken. There is no infringement, there are no damages.
 
2007-08-13 07:24:23 PM  
I have no idea why it is "racist" to be against illegal border jumping.

Actually I do know why. It is because the "pro-border jumpers" don't really have an argument or case and have to resort to name calling in a vain effort to silence someone is saying something that they don't like.

It's the same thing with everything:

Point out that Islam, as its base, is a violent intolerant religion and you get called an islamaphobe.

Point out that the culture of blame and victimhood of blacks in the US is the reason they suffer economically, not because of whitey, and you get called a racist.

Etc, be it with drunk driving, drug laws, tax laws, whatever.

Just going to get this stuff out of the way because someone is going to say it to try and justify their position.

The Crusades were a RESPONSE to Islam aggression and yes Cristianity has its violent bits, but it doesn't condone its followers to violently take over the earth and slaughter the non-believers.
 
2007-08-13 07:25:05 PM  
One opnion against another.
Savage is abit of an asshole but the more he blabs the obvious his insanity is.
 
2007-08-13 07:31:05 PM  
Well then, if it's legal for the SF Board of Supervisors to do it then I look forward to the White House issuing a formal condemnation of Air America and supporting the termination of it's on air personalities as well in the coming weeks and months...

/goose-gander ect
 
2007-08-13 07:42:32 PM  
Michael Savage has every right to state his opinion about public policy.He is just a little more blunt than most talk show hosts.
 
2007-08-13 07:45:03 PM  
kronicfeld: FarkLiter: Should it pass, however, you have a pretty clear case for 1st amendment infringement.

No, you don't. No actual action is being taken. There is no infringement, there are no damages.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I see nothing in there about 'action'. The city council trampled on his rights and they should get smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for doing so.
 
2007-08-13 07:48:58 PM  
Weaver95: I see nothing in there about 'action'. The city council trampled on his rights and they should get smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for doing so.

No. They denounced him. They didn't do anything to actually prevent him from speaking or to punish him after the fact for speaking.

Believe me, I think they're absolute douchebags for this resolution. But it does not create a legally cognizable cause of action.
 
2007-08-13 07:49:40 PM  
kronicfeld:No, you don't. No actual action is being taken. There is no infringement, there are no damages.

Yes, you do. Damages can be awarded for any monetary loss, including loss of revenue for potential endorsements he may no longer be considered for. (It's not a stretch to say a business in San Francisco might not want him to endorse them anymore if the government there has officially condemned him. He does not have to lose an endorsement deal for that, simply not get offered one, and he could claim it's because of this that the offer didn't come.)
 
2007-08-13 07:50:32 PM  
Weaver95: or abridging the freedom of speech

I see nothing in there about 'action'.


Sorry, but a resolution condemning speech does not rise to the level of abridgment. If they had tried to prohibit him from speaking, or tried to punish the radio station for broadcasting him you might have a case. But they didn't do that.
 
2007-08-13 07:53:40 PM  
Dinki: Weaver95: or abridging the freedom of speech

I see nothing in there about 'action'.

Sorry, but a resolution condemning speech does not rise to the level of abridgment. If they had tried to prohibit him from speaking, or tried to punish the radio station for broadcasting him you might have a case. But they didn't do that.


So if Congress was to issue a proclamation condeming homosexuality as immoral, nobody's civil rights would be violated?
 
2007-08-13 07:54:48 PM  
Dinki: But they didn't do that.

No, they only gave an official government endorsement to those that are trying to do just that.
 
2007-08-13 08:04:15 PM  
Radioactive Ass: Dinki: But they didn't do that.

No, they only gave an official government endorsement to those that are trying to do just that.


If the government offical in question had said something along the lines of 'gee, I disagree and think that Mr. Savage is wrong' then there wouldn't be a problem. But having the city council pass a resolution condemming him (regardless of any criminal or civil penalties attached or not) is a bit more than just a disagreement of policy matters.
 
2007-08-13 08:22:48 PM  
I don't agree with anything Savage has to say, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it.
 
2007-08-13 08:26:53 PM  
i15.tinypic.com

Hard-left, west-coast moron.

This San-Fransisco treat advocates for no US military - as in no armed services, period. He's an idiot.

Savage should sue the son of a b*tch. Make him suffer. I'd like a good laugh.
 
2007-08-13 08:31:16 PM  
Weaver95: So if Congress was to issue a proclamation condeming homosexuality as immoral, nobody's civil rights would be violated?

Correct.
 
2007-08-13 08:34:01 PM  
Afternoon_Delight: Hard-left, west-coast moron.

This San-Fransisco treat advocates for no US military - as in no armed services, period. He's an idiot.

Savage should sue the son of a b*tch. Make him suffer. I'd like a good laugh.


Nobody is saying he's a great guy. We're saying that he's got a perfect right to be a moron while he's on the air. In fact, if the city council of San Francisco had passed a resolution saying 'Hey, Savage is a dickbag and we don't agree with him', I wouldn't have a problem with it. They just don't have a right to tell him to shut the hell up OR give other people the idea that him falling down the stairs a few times until he shut the hell up is ok either.
 
2007-08-13 08:34:40 PM  
kronicfeld: Weaver95: So if Congress was to issue a proclamation condeming homosexuality as immoral, nobody's civil rights would be violated?

Correct.


And yet we both know the ACLU would sue the pants off Congress for Civil Rights violations if they took that course of action.
 
2007-08-13 08:37:27 PM  
Weaver95: So if Congress was to issue a proclamation condeming homosexuality as immoral, nobody's civil rights would be violated?

kronicfeld: Correct.



What if congress passed a law that defined US borders? Would that violate the rights of people who wish to walk across from Mexico?

Liberals say yes, because the border is unjust... and racist. And if you don't agree with that, it's because you are an ignorant, uncaring bigot.
 
2007-08-13 08:40:00 PM  
Weaver95: We're saying that he's got a perfect right to be a moron while he's on the air.


Savage isn't a moron. The councilman is.
 
2007-08-13 08:41:59 PM  
Weaver95: And yet we both know the ACLU would sue the pants off Congress for Civil Rights violations if they took that course of action.

And they'd be wrong to do so. How do you think you have a point here?

Afternoon_Delight: What if congress passed a law that defined US borders? Would that violate the rights of people who wish to walk across from Mexico?
Liberals say yes, because the border is unjust... and racist. And if you don't agree with that, it's because you are an ignorant, uncaring bigot.


Were you on this guy's flight yesterday?
 
2007-08-13 08:45:37 PM  
i16.tinypic.com
 
2007-08-13 08:50:11 PM  
Afternoon_Delight: Liberals say yes, because the border is unjust... and racist. And if you don't agree with that, it's because you are an ignorant, uncaring bigot.

my.photodump.com
 
2007-08-13 08:50:13 PM  
Afternoon_Delight: i16.tinypic.com

Sorry, I forgot I was talking to an alt.
 
2007-08-13 08:50:14 PM  
kronicfeld: Weaver95: And yet we both know the ACLU would sue the pants off Congress for Civil Rights violations if they took that course of action.

And they'd be wrong to do so. How do you think you have a point here?



Just checking to see how far the rabbit hole went. It went exactly as far as I'd expected. rather depressing, actually.
 
2007-08-13 08:53:46 PM  
Weaver95: It went exactly as far as I'd expected.

What, with my being consistent in upholding a clear legal principle? Damn, you got me.
 
2007-08-13 08:57:14 PM  
Afternoon_Delight: Weaver95: We're saying that he's got a perfect right to be a moron while he's on the air.


Savage isn't a moron. The councilman is.


My default position is that ALL 'media personalities' are asshats. Even if they sometimes stumble across the right idea - they're still asshats.

Now, they've got a perfect right to be asshats...but their job is to feed off of controversy. Which means they sometimes take a tack that's designed less to reach an acceptable resolution to an issue and more to extend said controversy and get some good air time out of it.

always remember - the media's agenda is to cover 'the news'. And they're not above helping to make some news to give them something to cover.
 
2007-08-13 08:57:49 PM  
kronicfeld: Weaver95: It went exactly as far as I'd expected.

What, with my being consistent in upholding a clear legal principle? Damn, you got me.


Whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
2007-08-13 08:58:06 PM  
Liberals say the border is unjust... and racist. And if you don't agree with that, it's because you are an ignorant, uncaring bigot.

That's true, of course, but I left something out. If you believe that the United States should have borders, not only are you an ignorant, uncaring bigot, you should should be comdemned by city council for voicing your opinion.

There. That's better.
 
2007-08-13 09:03:50 PM  
Weaver95: always remember - the media's agenda is to cover 'the news'. And they're not above helping to make some news to give them something to cover.

Weaver, my friend, I'm usually spot-on with you, but that's retarded. There's levels of media and I can promise you the vast majority of the media do not make news in order to cover it. You know that.
 
2007-08-13 09:04:00 PM  
Weaver95: Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Nice non-response. Very true to form. Tell us again about how you can be arrested for praying in a courthouse. Or how the ACLU should be able to figure out a way to bring a criminal prosecution in their capacity as a civil advocacy and legal aid organization.
 
2007-08-13 09:27:18 PM  
I'm fairly liberal and I actually LIKE Michael Savage. I listen to him as often as I can, tho I don't agree with him often.
 
2007-08-13 09:46:06 PM  
Crosshair: I have no idea why it is "racist" to be against illegal border jumping.

These days, it's racist to put out a romance personal and use the initials "SWF" to represent what you're looking for. Nobody would be warbling about racism if it was Germany or Great Britain at our southern border supplying us with undocumented immigrants.

We have allowed race sesitivity to become so volatile a subject, that we literally would prefer to allow people to violate the law, rather than be marked as racist.

I have no problem with Mexican people. I have a problem with People who break the Law, whether you're hopping over the border secretively, or not.

If there were no laws against it, I would not have a problem with it. If I break a law, I risk getting my butt in the ringer. It should be the same for anyone.

Reverse racism is still racism. It doesn't matter whether you're penalizing someone for the color of their skin, or letting them get away with anything they want for the same reason.

Is this radio guy a trolling assclown? I don't know, maybe. I don't listen to him, but for this issue to go crazy because some politicians (who are supposed to represent law-abiding citizenry) don't want his opinions about illegal immigration to be broadcast is stupid.

I get so tired of this double-standard BS. If you break a law, race or citizenry aside, you should be held equally accountable according to the letter of the law.

Now, get off my lawn!
 
2007-08-13 10:14:39 PM  
kronicfeld: Weaver95: Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Nice non-response. Very true to form. Tell us again about how you can be arrested for praying in a courthouse. Or how the ACLU should be able to figure out a way to bring a criminal prosecution in their capacity as a civil advocacy and legal aid organization.


So I reduced you to mis-characterizations and out of context quotes as a 'defense'...?

Man, i'm GOOD at this! I should have a radio show or something!
 
2007-08-13 10:19:05 PM  
kronicfeld: The resolution is bullshiat, but there is absolutely no way this legislator has any sort of civil liability at all for it. At the very least, there's legislative privilege. But even absent that, the grounds on which it could supposedly be brought is just horsecrap.

Really? It is slander is it not?
 
2007-08-13 10:21:35 PM  
No hay fronteras verdaderas, solamente las que tu te creas!

/Suck it Savage
//But I support free speech, so suck it, councilman
 
2007-08-13 10:23:43 PM  
Crosshair: I have no idea why it is "racist" to be against illegal border jumping.

Actually I do know why. It is because the "pro-border jumpers" don't really have an argument or case and have to resort to name calling in a vain effort to silence someone is saying something that they don't like.

It's the same thing with everything:

Point out that Islam, as its base, is a violent intolerant religion and you get called an islamaphobe.

Point out that the culture of blame and victimhood of blacks in the US is the reason they suffer economically, not because of whitey, and you get called a racist.

Etc, be it with drunk driving, drug laws, tax laws, whatever.

Just going to get this stuff out of the way because someone is going to say it to try and justify their position.

The Crusades were a RESPONSE to Islam aggression and yes Cristianity has its violent bits, but it doesn't condone its followers to violently take over the earth and slaughter the non-believers.


THIS.

And whats the deal with all the people who call me an anti-semite when I merely point out that Jews control the banks an drink the blood of christians?

All this political correctness is getting out of hand!
 
2007-08-13 10:26:02 PM  
Sup. Sandoval is the same douchebag who famously said on Hannity and Colmes: "The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape."

Nothing that any of the SF supervisors has to say is worth paying attention to, whatsoever.

That said, I for one am sick of liberals spinning language so that people with anti-illegal views become anti-immigrant - and it's nice to see one them called on their shiat.
 
2007-08-13 10:28:34 PM  
Afternoon_Delight: Hard-left, west-coast moron.

You like 'em hard, do ya?
 
2007-08-13 10:30:18 PM  
Good luck with this retarded lawsuit. MajorQ_Q'er: kronicfeld: The resolution is bullshiat, but there is absolutely no way this legislator has any sort of civil liability at all for it. At the very least, there's legislative privilege. But even absent that, the grounds on which it could supposedly be brought is just horsecrap.

Really? It is slander is it not?


Ever wonder how talk show hosts like Coulter and Savage can spew bile against other public figures and not get sued? For the same reason this legislator can - fair comment.
 
2007-08-13 10:35:12 PM  
Weaver95: They just don't have a right to tell him to shut the hell up OR give other people the idea that him falling down the stairs a few times until he shut the hell up is ok either.

THIS. Please, please, please, don't make this blowhard some kind of martyr. HE IS NOT WORTHY.
 
2007-08-13 10:38:19 PM  
kronicfeld: Weaver95: I see nothing in there about 'action'. The city council trampled on his rights and they should get smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for doing so.

No. They denounced him. They didn't do anything to actually prevent him from speaking or to punish him after the fact for speaking.

Believe me, I think they're absolute douchebags for this resolution. But it does not create a legally cognizable cause of action.


I disagree with you . Though they do not, by legislative decree, take an active hand in creating an actual harm on Michael Savage or infringing his speech rights, it seems to be Savage's argument that their encouragement of citizens to cause him to be removed from radio is, in fact, the government subjecting or causing Savage to be subjected to an infringement upon his constitutional rights. The act reads as follows;

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

I know nothing of the resolution and do not know whether or not it is active, and I also know nothing of how the statute is interpreted. However, it would seem that the government's best argument here is that Savage does not have standing because the resolution has not yet passed. But, a quick reading of the statute and Savage's lawyer's letter to savage seems to suggest that they do indeed have a case against the supervisors.
 
2007-08-13 10:41:22 PM  
Fart_Machine: Good luck with this retarded lawsuit. MajorQ_Q'er: kronicfeld: The resolution is bullshiat, but there is absolutely no way this legislator has any sort of civil liability at all for it. At the very least, there's legislative privilege. But even absent that, the grounds on which it could supposedly be brought is just horsecrap.

Really? It is slander is it not?

Ever wonder how talk show hosts like Coulter and Savage can spew bile against other public figures and not get sued? For the same reason this legislator can - fair comment.


In this particular instance, an argument can certainly be made that the statement was not true and that it was made with actual malice.
 
Displayed 50 of 142 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report