Savage Banned from UK.

[captain.crazy]

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

wow... I wonder if he will finally recognize that 9-11 was an inside job?

[GabonX]

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

Cute..

The words do mean what they say. If you say something and are arrested it is not because of the words themseles, as people are free to say whatever they want in the United States. Like I said before, people can be arrested for circumstances beyond the speech itself but not for the words.

It is not illegal to say "I'm going to kill the President," but it is illegal to mean it. If the authorities find that you intend to kill the President it doesn't matter whether you said it or not, you will be detained. On the other hand, if you say "I'm going to kill the President" and it is for some reason other than expressing that you actually want to kill the President (much like what you and I have both done in this thread) the speech is protected, as all speech is protected in the United States of America.

If you are arrested for something as a result of speech, it is not because of the speech itself but rather you have clarified that you are illegaly plotting to do or are doing something illegal. Words can identify a problem, but are not the problem in and of themselves.

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.

Freedom of speech applies primarily to political speech and always has, however all speech is protected. How is Jacqui Smith banning Savage from the UK for speeking (and never actually advocating violence) in congruence with my position that free speech is a basic human right?

Also, Savage is right about children with autism. As he has explained, the condition exists, but it is wrongfully and abusively identified in many children who do not have it. Drugs are not the first line of action if you wish to responsibly deal with a child.

[Snorri1234]

It is not illegal to say "I'm going to kill the President," but it is illegal to mean it. If the authorities find that you intend to kill the President it doesn't matter whether you said it or not, you will be detained. On the other hand, if you say "I'm going to kill the President" and it is for some reason other than expressing that you actually want to kill the President (much like what you and I have both done in this thread) the speech is protected, as all speech is protected in the United States of America.

Actually, I'd say you will probably get arrested for calling up the president and saying you're going to kill him regardless of whether there is any evidence that you intent to.

[GabonX]

The statement is evidence in and of itself unless the context indicates otherwise.

Regardless of whether you state your intentions, it is illegal to plot to kill or to attempt to kill or to kill another person.

Speech may reveal illegal intentions, but it is not the speech itself which is illegal.

Regardless, the term "freedom of speech" has always primarily referred to political speech.

[Snorri1234]

The statement is evidence in and of itself unless the context indicates otherwise.

Regardless of whether you state your intentions, it is illegal to plot to kill or to attempt to kill or to kill another person.

Speech may reveal illegal intentions, but it is not the speech itself which is illegal.

Man, I had this whole long thing written out in my head as to why intent and speech cannot always be seperated.


And then I suddenly thought.....but wait a minute, aren't things like The Miller Test or laws about advertising already limits on free speech?

Regardless, the term "freedom of speech" has always primarily referred to political speech.

That's not true. It is merely the most important topic which falls under the term "freedom of speech".


I would debate with you further, but I suddenly remembered that you never actually read up on any topic you're discussing. Not even a quick wiki-browse.

[captain.crazy]

I would debate with you further, but I suddenly remembered that you never actually read up on any topic you're discussing. Not even a quick wiki-browse.

Yeah, but I think that you only read articles in High Times, so you aren't exactly qualified either.

[InkL0sed]

The freedom of speech is not absolute.

If what you say presents a "clear and present danger", then it is illegal. For example, you can yell about taking down the government all you want, but if you start announcing your intention to stage a coup d'etat tomorrow morning, then you can be arrested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio