I think that the key here is in an understanding of the 1st Amendment: the strength of it lies in the word 'abridged'. This is the same argument that saved guns in the Supreme Court decision with respect to the 2nd Amendment.

'Abridged' means plainly that free speech cannot be curtailed or its exercise altered. Going on the radio and skirting sedition and exploiting the language for the purposes of shock value or political agenda is not the same as "Free Speech" and I think any reasonable person can see that.

BTW, there is no "Freedom of Expression" in the 1st Amendment that does not relate to religion: that's why flashers get arrested. The framers would have bludgeoned a man for standing on the corner yelling the 7 words you can't say on television just to 'test' free speech. And this (element) in our media is doing just that today and whipping people up about some nonsense that freedom of speech is somehow threatened: it ain't gonna happen in the US. Moreover, I for one find it an insult to this country and its history when the rightwing drags the fallen (of whatever fight) into a "circus of stupidity" (I use that phrase advisedly).

It is the misrepresentation of freedom of speech, like the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is getting the headlines and the ratings. The fact that the commercial media (Left-Right and Indiferent) openly exploits these things for money shows that the media and the shock-jocks and Super Patriots have no respect for either Amendment, and in the end that corrupt element will lose.

Who would you ban and who you not ban from entering the UK?

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

No its not, it simply society expressing its views about whats acceptable; just as we do on many issues.

__________________

I'm not British, its not my place to say however as many claim that freedom of speech is a human right, and most reasonable people believe it essential in order to have a democratic society (which Britain claims to be), and also due to the fact that what happens in one western country usually eventually happens in other western countries, I am disturbed that people are singled out to be denied entry because of non-violent opinions some view as controversial or "offensive." Beyond that, you can choose whatever criteria you want. Its not my concern.

Thats just it, these opinions are violent. They are extremism, liable to be as dangerous as a bomb in the right circumstances.

But dont worry, we dont mind you having your say, so who do you want to be let in and who dont you?

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

I think you're mistaken on that.

Is Michael Savage promoting violence? I don't like the guy, I'm not anti-Muslim or anti-Arab, but how is he violent?

George Galloway was banned from Canada for the opposite reason, being anti-Israel and pro-Arab, but again how is he promoting "violence"?

If someone explicitly calls on someone to commit a specific violent act then I can see that as PERHAPS being subject to restriction though even that is a problematic issue in my opinion.

Again, I don't care who you let in or not as long as they aren't singled out because of some controversial opinion. If you are tired of tourists then keep everybody out. I don't care.

Ok ok. you ve got me. I dont really want to ban all extremist opinion, because I think alot of it isnt actually violent.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

I completely disagree, and in fact Savage is *exactly* the kind of speech that is intended to be protected. You *must* be able to say unpopular things.

I listen to him on rare occasion. I've heard his show maybe a dozen times.

This image being painted of him is *completely* false.

This is exactly what freedom of speech is all about. It's just too bad that the UK does not have such a concept in it's laws. They actually jail people for unpopular speech there.

Just one of the many reasons to allow us Yanks to feel superior, I guess!

;-)

j/k

The Thought Police?

its called brainwashing and social engineering. Society used to express its views one way and suppressed liberal socialism, until they got in power, and are steadily trying to do it back. - a frightening ideology that basically believes one should not stand up for oneself, or ones country.

No worries though, because rebellion is fun. No one will get a kick out of it more then Savage.
It takes the fun out of being some psuedo intellectual when everyone starts agreeing with you.
Now you are just one of many in the crowd.

__________________
"To those who say what must be said; They lead the way for those who will do what must be done."

Capitalism is Democracy, vote with your dollar.

The audience is asked to remain seated until the end of the recession.

Do foreigners actually have the right to enter other nations? Illegal immigrants can't just waltz (legally) across the border, can they? Still, I see it as an important issue that they did this for their unpopular opinions. If this had been done in the US, I would oppose it because it would not be sound immigration policy. I also don't see what it has to do with democracy, since mere visitors to Britain can't vote, anyway, and I don't see people complaining about that.

Not only is this not true, it is contradictory. Social liberalism (socialism) is the idea that one should sacrifice one's individuality for society (or, as it occurs in practice, for the government). Libertarianism (liberty) is the idea that one should be able to pursue individual desires even if it means a lesser society (subjective as it may be) and a smaller government.

These these "violent" opinions grow little opinion legs and kick you in the shin or something?You mean like quite a bit of religion?

ummmm, no pal. governments tend to grant rights only to THEIR citizens.

__________________

Yeah, Savage IS nuts, but I like the guy whether I agree with him or not.

Maybe banning him (which is their right, as he's not a British citizen) was the price to pay for also banning Fred Phelps. Now, banning that psycho asshole is perfectly okay with me.

Actually, instead of banning Phelps, I would like it better if they would TAKE the lunatic (and his inbred clan) and get him out of MY country.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.