(Savage Canned) Yes, you have free speech...

[sarettah]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20030708b.html (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200307 %5CCUL20030708b.html)

CNSNews.com) - Broadcaster Michael Savage was fired from his job as an MSNBC talk show host Monday for making what the cable channel called "inappropriate" comments to a homosexual caller.

The comments were made during Savage's July 5 broadcast when the broadcaster told a homosexual caller to the show that he should "get AIDS and die," and suggesting the caller "eat a sausage and choke on it - get trichinosis."

.................................................. ..........

"MSNBC has now found itself broadcasting exactly the kind of verbal assaults GLAAD's been warning them about for the past five months," said GLAAD News Media Director Cathy Renna. "To their credit, MSNBC and NBC News have backed up their promises to hold Savage accountable for his behavior."

Savage had been the subject of a GLAAD campaign targeting commercial advertisers, seeking to have those corporations withdraw their advertising from the show, which made its debut this past spring.

GLAAD launched a similar campaign in 2000 against broadcaster Dr. Laura Schlessinger when she launched a television talk show to complement her radio program. Like the Savage effort, GLAAD's targeting of Schlessinger's show was predicated on her opposition to homosexuality.

[Torone]

Sad! It seems that only the anointed (so-called minorities) are entitled to freedom of speech these days.

I would look for a breach-of-contract suit, though...as I remember, they told Savage that they would not attempt to censor him. Of course, we ARE talking about MSNBC... :headwall:

[JR]

i think you guys are a little confused. he is an employee that was deemed to have behaved innapropriately and thus, his employment was terminated.

MSNBC can hire and fire as they choose.

[Peaches]

"Free Speech" pertains to the government not arresting/killing you for speaking your mind. It has NOTHING to do with being punished by your employer. :unsure:

[Timon]

Telling someone "get AIDS and die" on your employers airtime is a pretty good reason to get fired...

[PornoDoggy]

Oh, them uppity minorities ... :rolleyes:

Where are all of the people who defended media outlets for pulling Dixie Chicks recordings after they made public statements merely expressing political opposition to policies of the Bush Administration?

[Torone]

Originally posted by Peaches@Jul 10 2003, 08:00 AM
"Free Speech" pertains to the government not arresting/killing you for speaking your mind. It has NOTHING to do with being punished by your employer. :unsure:
How come when I say that, nobody even ack's that I spoke. Still, I was pointing out the fact that the 'anointed' scream "freedom of speech" about such things when it affects them; but their own rules only apply in their favor...sort of like saying "the aces only count when I'm holding them.".

[Torone]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jul 10 2003, 09:08 AM
Oh, them uppity minorities ... :rolleyes:

Where are all of the people who defended media outlets for pulling Dixie Chicks recordings after they made public statements merely expressing political opposition to policies of the Bush Administration?
Mr. Left,
First, the Dixie Twits did it during wartime and on foreign soil to make points with anti-Americans.
Second, what Peaches posted was right. Only the gov't is proscribed from such things. NPR (your favorite) can't do it; but privately-owned stations have no obligation to play them. Even if you say that freedom of speech can't be denied by ordinary citizens, our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, NOT the right to be heard.

When we gettin' that damned 'finger' smiley?

[Mike AI]

i think you guys are a little confused. he is an employee that was deemed to have behaved innapropriately and thus, his employment was terminated.

Yeah this was not just some guy expressing his opinion on an issue, this was an insult in a forum that probably did not call for one.

I do not think this has anything to do with politcal correctness.... but there have been issues in the past where people have gotten the shaft due to political correctness....

[PornoDoggy]

Mr Reactionary ...

So I guess it follows that a privately owned network can fire yet another Compassionate Conservative who fails to follow the script and says what they really mean, huh?

I should not have used the comparisson to the Dixie Chicks anyway - it's apples and oranges. What one of them made is obviously a political comment. The ban imposed by some radio stations was retaliation for that political opinion. As the Dixie Chicks were not employed by the network(s) involved, there are some pretty gray areas involved here since the license given to the same networks is issued by the Government. It's also completely irrelevant to this discussion.

The bottom feeder in question was terminated for hate speech. I have no doubt that he would have been fired had he made equally offensive remarks about any other group with the possible exception of Arabs.

[Torone]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jul 10 2003, 10:01 AM
Mr Reactionary ...

So I guess it follows that a privately owned network can fire yet another Compassionate Conservative who fails to follow the script and says what they really mean, huh?

I should not have used the comparisson to the Dixie Chicks anyway - it's apples and oranges. What one of them made is obviously a political comment. The ban imposed by some radio stations was retaliation for that political opinion. As the Dixie Chicks were not employed by the network(s) involved, there are some pretty gray areas involved here since the license given to the same networks is issued by the Government. It's also completely irrelevant to this discussion.

The bottom feeder in question was terminated for hate speech. I have no doubt that he would have been fired had he made equally offensive remarks about any other group with the possible exception of Arabs.
If, in fact, he was a non-contract employee, they could. If, instead, he was (as I have heard) a contracted performer (much more likely), they had better be sure of their grounds and have some damned good lawyers.

BTW, what would you call the men who founded this country...they were called radicals, probably reactionaries. What they weren't was Communists. What they weren't was Liberals. What they weren't was Democrats. Have you ever bothered to study American History? Read the Declaration of Independence (which you posted on Independence Day) or The Constitution? You have already said that you read Marx (Karl, not Groucho). Does the idea of Totalitarianism give you wet dreams?

When we gettin' that damned 'finger' smiley?

:salute:

[JR]

and here I thought Joe McCarthy was the only one who fell back on the "cuz your a Communist" defense when he ran out of things to say.

:rolleyes:

[Torone]

Originally posted by JR@Jul 10 2003, 10:20 AM
and here I thought Joe McCarthy was the only one who fell back on the "cuz your a Communist" defense when he ran out of things to say.

:rolleyes:
Jr,
McCarthy was just a bit before his time. In fact, right now, we're putting together a movement to outlaw Socialism and Communism by Constitutional Amendment. At the same time, we are cloning Ol' Joe and will have him trained and ready when the Amendment is ratified. (whole buncha 'finger' smileys!)

In other words, F-Y! :nyanya:

:salute:

[PornoDoggy]

IMHO, the reactionaries during the revolution were the loyalists, not the rebels. And many of the folks that signed the Delcaration were liberals - although the definition of liberal and conservative in the 1770s doesn't exactly translate to the 21st Century very well. They were a pretty diverse group of folks united in their desire for Independence. On much else they disagreed.

BTW - you continue to bring up the fact that I have read some Karl Marx as if I should be ashamed of it. Among the other people I have read are Charles DeGaulle, Adolph Hitler, Winston Churchill, Ghandi, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Trotsky, Whittaker Chambers, J. Edgar Hoover, and Henry Kissinger. Anybody else you think I ought to be ashamed of reading? Planning a book run later this week, and need some suggestions - perhaps there is someone I need to read more of.

[sarettah]

"MSNBC has now found itself broadcasting exactly the kind of verbal assaults GLAAD's been warning them about for the past five months," said GLAAD News Media Director Cathy Renna. "To their credit, MSNBC and NBC News have backed up their promises to hold Savage accountable for his behavior."

Savage had been the subject of a GLAAD campaign targeting commercial advertisers, seeking to have those corporations withdraw their advertising from the show, which made its debut this past spring.

GLAAD launched a similar campaign in 2000 against broadcaster Dr. Laura Schlessinger when she launched a television talk show to complement her radio program. Like the Savage effort, GLAAD's targeting of Schlessinger's show was predicated on her opposition to homosexuality."

************************************************** **

This is the part that bothers me......

Should he have made the comment, probably not...

But - He was clearly being targeted by the gay and lesbian community to further their agenda.

I have no problems with gays or lesbians... I do have a problem with ANY GROUP that pushes an agenda to shut down the speech of ANYONE who disagrees with them.

One of the cornerstones of our way of life (imo) is the free and open exchange of ideas. When we start deciding that something (a word, phrase, idea, whatever) should not be allowed to be articulated publicly because it "OFFENDS" someone, we are clearly on the wrong track.

The Gay and Lesbian community thinks homosexuality is a good thing. They are entitled to that opinion and are entitled to try to convince as many people as possible that that is a good thing.

Certain people in our country think homosexuality is an immoral thing. They are also entitled to their opinion and are entitled to try to convince as many people as possible that they are right.

Neither side is entitled to shut down the other because they do not agree with them.

[Torone]

Pd,
I can make this statement with no rancor towards you (of course!)...
Almost anything by E.E. Smith is a good read. Not that much politics, unless you can get either Subspace Explorers or The Galaxy Primes; but definitely enjoyable reading. :agrin:

Of course, I could also offer Limbaugh, Hannity, or Coulter... :nyanya:

:salute:

[PornoDoggy]

No need for me to read Coulter ... I've read enough Phyllis Schaffley. I am likely to read Limbaugh or Hannity when you read Hillary's book.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jul 10 2003, 10:38 AM
BTW - you continue to bring up the fact that I have read some Karl Marx as if I should be ashamed of it. Among the other people I have read are Charles DeGaulle, Adolph Hitler, Winston Churchill, Ghandi, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Trotsky, Whittaker Chambers, J. Edgar Hoover, and Henry Kissinger. Anybody else you think I ought to be ashamed of reading? Planning a book run later this week, and need some suggestions - perhaps there is someone I need to read more of.
Pretty good reading list. The Communist Manifesto is one of the great works of the the past two centuries. One of the best written for sure. On par with "Common Sense". Have you ever "The Weath of Nations"? What a mess of a book that is. One sure doesn't have to be a literary great to be right. ;-)