Savage Banned from UK.

[captain.crazy]

I have no idea what you're talking about, all I said was that if the rights guarunteed to the people are not actually guarunteed then we need not abide by the powers it grants the Government.

Politicians do not have the authority to take away our rights as they see fit and retain the powers that the Constitution grants them. This is not a game of pick and choose.

That's not what Captain crazy said though.

eh? what are you referring to?

[Timminz]

Either freedom of speech exists as a governing principal or it does not. It does not in the UK. As an American I'm proud to say that we still have it in the States.

A lot of things work, in principal. It's when they get put into practice that they fail. Your United States does not allow true freedom of speech. To say that it does, is an ignorant (albeit idealistic) claim.

[Snorri1234]

I have no idea what you're talking about, all I said was that if the rights guarunteed to the people are not actually guarunteed then we need not abide by the powers it grants the Government.

Politicians do not have the authority to take away our rights as they see fit and retain the powers that the Constitution grants them. This is not a game of pick and choose.

That's not what Captain crazy said though.

eh? what are you referring to?

That what everybody got all uppity about was not what Gabon was defending so all types of confursion and lol im drunk.

I think me explaining it tomorrow would be better.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, funny how that works. Its getting that way in the States too.

Only if you live in Marine County.

[GabonX]

Either freedom of speech exists as a governing principal or it does not. It does not in the UK. As an American I'm proud to say that we still have it in the States.

A lot of things work, in principal. It's when they get put into practice that they fail. Your United States does not allow true freedom of speech. To say that it does, is an ignorant (albeit idealistic) claim.

This is the part where you explain what you're referring to or we disregard your claim...

[The1exile]

This is the part where you explain what you're referring to or we disregard your claim...

While I can't speak authoritatively for Timminz, I suspect he is referring to incidents like these (presented in a variety of media for the ADD generation):
youtube vid on suppressing protest (or the right to free speech): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yarWiVwy ... annel_page
Reuters article about attempts to legalise jailing protesters

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say.

The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation.

Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.

The bill's few public supporters say police need stronger laws to break up protests that have created havoc in cities like Portland, where thousands of people have marched and demonstrated against war in Iraq since last fall.

"We need some additional tools to control protests that shut down the city," said Lars Larson, a conservative radio talk show host who has aggressively stumped for the bill.

Larson said protesters should be protected by free speech laws, but not given free reign to hold up ambulances or frighten people out of their daily routines, adding that police and the court system could be trusted to see the difference.

"Right now a group of people can get together and go downtown and block a freeway," Larson said. "You need a tool to deal with that."

The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism.

Critics of the bill say its language is so vague it erodes basic freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism under an extremely broad definition.

"Under the original version (terrorism) meant essentially a food fight," said Andrea Meyer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposes the bill.

other examples come from the AP:

Wednesday, March 05, 2003

ALBANY, N.Y. -- A man wearing a "Peace on Earth, Give Peace a Chance" T-shirt in a shopping mall says he was arrested because he refused to take the shirt off, but the mall says he was nabbed for bothering other shoppers.

Security guards approached Stephen Downs, 61, and his 31-year-old son Roger, on Monday night after they were spotted wearing the T-shirts at Crossgates Mall in a suburb of Albany, N.Y., the men said.

The two said they were asked to remove the shirts made at a store there, or leave the mall. They refused.

The guards returned with a police officer who repeated the ultimatum. The son took his T-shirt off, but the father refused.

"'I said, 'All right then, arrest me if you have to,'"Downs said. "So that's what they did. They put the handcuffs on and took me away."

Downs pleaded innocent to the charges Monday night. The New York Civil Liberties Union said it would help with his case if asked.

Police Chief James Murley said his officers were just responding to a complaint by mall security.

"We don't care what they have on their shirts, but they were asked to leave the property, and it's private property," Murley said.

Monday's arrest came less than three months after about 20 peace activists wearing similar T-shirts were told to leave by mall security and police. There were no arrests.

These are not isolated incidents. Very few countries, if any, have absolute freedom of speech, but to suggest that the US has it is a nonsense.

[Timminz]

Either freedom of speech exists as a governing principal or it does not. It does not in the UK. As an American I'm proud to say that we still have it in the States.

A lot of things work, in principal. It's when they get put into practice that they fail. Your United States does not allow true freedom of speech. To say that it does, is an ignorant (albeit idealistic) claim.

This is the part where you explain what you're referring to or we disregard your claim...

Okay, try this. Make a death threat towards the president. See how "free" you are to express yourself then.

[captain.crazy]

Either freedom of speech exists as a governing principal or it does not. It does not in the UK. As an American I'm proud to say that we still have it in the States.

A lot of things work, in principal. It's when they get put into practice that they fail. Your United States does not allow true freedom of speech. To say that it does, is an ignorant (albeit idealistic) claim.

This is the part where you explain what you're referring to or we disregard your claim...

Okay, try this. Make a death threat towards the president. See how "free" you are to express yourself then.

I think he is a treasonous pig and should be drawn and quartered by oxen.

[Timminz]

Either freedom of speech exists as a governing principal or it does not. It does not in the UK. As an American I'm proud to say that we still have it in the States.

A lot of things work, in principal. It's when they get put into practice that they fail. Your United States does not allow true freedom of speech. To say that it does, is an ignorant (albeit idealistic) claim.

This is the part where you explain what you're referring to or we disregard your claim...

Okay, try this. Make a death threat towards the president. See how "free" you are to express yourself then.

I think he is a treasonous pig and should be drawn and quartered by oxen.

Your opinion of him bears no weight in the matter of whether or not you are free to make a threat on his life.

[AgentSmith88]

I think the important fact everyone is missing is that Michael Savage's real last name is Weiner. The subject should say "Weiner Banned from UK."

[TheProwler]

What a Weiner.

[Snorri1234]

Either freedom of speech exists as a governing principal or it does not. It does not in the UK. As an American I'm proud to say that we still have it in the States.

A lot of things work, in principal. It's when they get put into practice that they fail. Your United States does not allow true freedom of speech. To say that it does, is an ignorant (albeit idealistic) claim.

This is the part where you explain what you're referring to or we disregard your claim...

Okay, try this. Make a death threat towards the president. See how "free" you are to express yourself then.

I think he is a treasonous pig and should be drawn and quartered by oxen.

Yeah, but why don't you try to make a death threat.

[captain.crazy]

Yeah, but why don't you try to make a death threat.

Why would I make a death threat? That is stupid. It goes against the fabric of our republic.

[Neoteny]

Yeah, but why don't you try to make a death threat.

Why would I make a death threat? That is stupid. It goes against the fabric of our republic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc0lYe-i6wE

[Timminz]

This is the part where you explain what you're referring to or we disregard your claim...

Aw gee mister. Why have you not posted in this thread again?

[GabonX]

Either freedom of speech exists as a governing principal or it does not. It does not in the UK. As an American I'm proud to say that we still have it in the States.

A lot of things work, in principal. It's when they get put into practice that they fail. Your United States does not allow true freedom of speech. To say that it does, is an ignorant (albeit idealistic) claim.

This is the part where you explain what you're referring to or we disregard your claim...

Okay, try this. Make a death threat towards the president. See how "free" you are to express yourself then.

Freedom of speech does now and has always been in reference to political speech. Death threats have never been part of the definition. This is a ridiculous approach to the issue.

Regardless, the whole point of this is that Savage has never advocated violence. He has been banned for disagreeing with one Jacqui Smith.

This is the part where you explain what you're referring to or we disregard your claim...

While I can't speak authoritatively for Timminz, I suspect he is referring to incidents like these (presented in a variety of media for the ADD generation):
youtube vid on suppressing protest (or the right to free speech): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yarWiVwy ... annel_page
Reuters article about attempts to legalise jailing protesters

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say.

The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation.

Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.

The bill's few public supporters say police need stronger laws to break up protests that have created havoc in cities like Portland, where thousands of people have marched and demonstrated against war in Iraq since last fall.

"We need some additional tools to control protests that shut down the city," said Lars Larson, a conservative radio talk show host who has aggressively stumped for the bill.

Larson said protesters should be protected by free speech laws, but not given free reign to hold up ambulances or frighten people out of their daily routines, adding that police and the court system could be trusted to see the difference.

"Right now a group of people can get together and go downtown and block a freeway," Larson said. "You need a tool to deal with that."

The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism.

Critics of the bill say its language is so vague it erodes basic freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism under an extremely broad definition.

"Under the original version (terrorism) meant essentially a food fight," said Andrea Meyer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposes the bill.

other examples come from the AP:

Wednesday, March 05, 2003

ALBANY, N.Y. -- A man wearing a "Peace on Earth, Give Peace a Chance" T-shirt in a shopping mall says he was arrested because he refused to take the shirt off, but the mall says he was nabbed for bothering other shoppers.

Security guards approached Stephen Downs, 61, and his 31-year-old son Roger, on Monday night after they were spotted wearing the T-shirts at Crossgates Mall in a suburb of Albany, N.Y., the men said.

The two said they were asked to remove the shirts made at a store there, or leave the mall. They refused.

The guards returned with a police officer who repeated the ultimatum. The son took his T-shirt off, but the father refused.

"'I said, 'All right then, arrest me if you have to,'"Downs said. "So that's what they did. They put the handcuffs on and took me away."

Downs pleaded innocent to the charges Monday night. The New York Civil Liberties Union said it would help with his case if asked.

Police Chief James Murley said his officers were just responding to a complaint by mall security.

"We don't care what they have on their shirts, but they were asked to leave the property, and it's private property," Murley said.

Monday's arrest came less than three months after about 20 peace activists wearing similar T-shirts were told to leave by mall security and police. There were no arrests.

These are not isolated incidents. Very few countries, if any, have absolute freedom of speech, but to suggest that the US has it is a nonsense.

No it isn't. There is not a single political stance a person can take that is illegal. Everyone from Reverend Jeremiah Wright to members of the KKK are free to say what they like.

Does this mean you can say anything anywhere?

NO, OF COURSE NOT!

If some one has taken their time, effort, and money to organize a gathering to support a cause you are not entitled to occupy that exact same space at the exact same time and cause a disruption. You can protest out side or use your own resources to to organize your own event but you are not entitled to disrupt some one else's gathering.

For the reasons above your video does not demonstrate a violation of freedom of speech. The fact remains that in the United States people are free to take and voice any political position.

[GabonX]

This is the part where you explain what you're referring to or we disregard your claim...

Aw gee mister. Why have you not posted in this thread again?

[Timminz]

so the term "Free Speech", does not actually refer to freedom of speech? Okay then. by that definition, the US has free speech.

[GabonX]

so the term "Free Speech", does not actually refer to freedom of speech? Okay then. by that definition, the US has free speech.

Political speech

There is a difference between making a direct threat on an individual's life (as this precedes action) and expressing an opinion regarding policy.

[Timminz]

Saying that you have freedom of speech, implies that you have the freedom to say whatever you wish. Seeing as you do not have the freedom to say certain things, it is clear that you do not have freedom of speech. Feel free to continue to attempt to redefine words to prove your point though.

[GabonX]

Saying that you have freedom of speech, implies that you have the freedom to say whatever you wish. Seeing as you do not have the freedom to say certain things, it is clear that you do not have freedom of speech. Feel free to continue to attempt to redefine words to prove your point though.

People can and do say what ever they want. Nothing can possibly stop a person from saying that they want to kill the president. Man is inherently free.

If you threaten to kill a person this may be investigated, and if it is thought to have been substantive steps will be taken to stop the speeker. This is a matter of circumstances beyond the speech itself. People are not imprisoned in every instance when they say "I'm going to kill you," rather they are only imprisoned if there are some other circumstances which would warrant detainment.

The term "free speech" has always referred to political speech. In the United States, all political speech is protected while it is apparently not in the UK. This is the difference between the two countries and the point is plain to see.

[Timminz]

Pardon me for not knowing the american translation of "freedom of speech". Silly me, assuming it meant what the words mean.

[Gypsys Kiss]

How can you have 'freedom of speech', but only for political stances. Either you have it for all or you dont have it, full stop. And, Jacqui Smiths opinion of Savage is a political one. So by your definition the action was completely legitimate.

Why should the UK let such an obnoxious person past their borders. His views on autistic children alone would 'incite' me to violence if we were face to face.

[Lord and Master]

How can you have 'freedom of speech', but only for political stances. Either you have it for all or you dont have it, full stop. And, Jacqui Smiths opinion of Savage is a political one. So by your definition the action was completely legitimate.

Why should the UK let such an obnoxious person past their borders. His views on autistic children alone would 'incite' me to violence if we were face to face.

The most sensible post I've ever seen on CC. Hear Hear

[jay_a2j]

Wow, I guess I found out why Michael Savage was banned in the UK.