No doubt you folks will be turning cartwheels over Michael Savage being banned in Briton for extreme views. With the liberal Supreme Court members wanting to have other countries laws apply to the US, it might be only a matter of time until you can get conservative views banned in the US.

A total victory for the looney left.

Make no mistake, I can't stand Savage and never listen to him. I don't like his extreme views. But, if you ban him, where do you draw the line. Wouldn't we need to also ban extreme liberal views?

Let's just address media consolidation, and this problem ends up resolved.

I agree Deane ... I guess one of my conservative views, the art of "practicing self-censorship." Savage is a hate-monging, extremeist blowhard, so I CHOOSE to not to listen to him.

I doubt a whole lot in here will be turning "cartwheels" though.

I know that I am not turning "cartwheels," it would be dangerous to my heath. Seriously, I agree with you Deane - where do you draw the line. However,our freedom of speech is not absolute, you can't yell "fire" in a crowdd theater.

I can't stand Savage either, that is why I never listen to him.

The off button is a powerful tool.

Sorry to disappoint you Deane, but I agree, this is over the top.

Did they say why they were " banning " him? Did they flat out say " he's illegal! " Or did they just not carry his show or something?

And who is " They " in this case?

I hadn't heard about the story at all.

Apparently you don't read Drudge as Deane does.

Don't worry, Deane - when you travel to Great Britain you can still stream Savage over the internet and get your daily fill of hate radio that way.

Andrew, you didn't read my post. I never listen to Savage. I don't care for his extreme views.

Here's a link to the story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-s hamed-1679127.html

I heard this story on the news this morning: Great Britain compiled a list of somewhat high profile figures that they are not going to give visas to. These people will not be granted entry to Great Britain, but nothing was said about keeping materials produced by these people out of the country.

Deane_johnson: Andrew, you didn't read my post. I never listen to Savage. I don't care for his extreme views.

Deane, if everyone here who disagrees with you is a "lib" then surely you and all the "cons" are all alike too: eagerly taking notes on your yellow legal pads whenever Savage comes on the radio.

Sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious on message boards like this one: popular American political talk shows have very little meaning to people outside of US jurisdiction. It is unlikely that there would be a commercially justifiable reason, such as a speaking engagement, for Savage to go to the UK. This list is about making a statement, and I think that it is reasonable to assume that Savage was put on the list to make a statement to the US, rather than to British people.

Royal censorship!!??

"The off button is a powerful tool."

Yep, and that's what the UK did.

Personally, I don't really care. It's their country, and they don't want to let Michael Weiner in, that's their choice.

But, the UK hit the "off" button on these 16 people to make the statement, "do something about the wackies and crazies that you have running around in your respective countries." What, if anything, should the home countries of the banned individuals do about these "wackies?"

Deane_johnson:
No doubt you folks will be turning cartwheels over Michael Savage being banned in Briton

You'd be doing cartwheels if it was someone like Ed Schultz who got banned.

BTW it's spelled Britain.

" These people will not be granted entry to Great Britain, but nothing was said about keeping materials produced by these people out of the country."

Alfredo, thank you for either inadvertantly answering my question by stating what the story is about, or doing it on purpose.

> Alfredo, thank you for either inadvertantly answering my question by stating what the story is
> about, or doing it on purpose.

When Deane used the phrase, "banned in Briton [sic.] for extreme views," I thought that he was making a vague claim that could be interpreted either as his show/books being censored or as him not being allowed in the country. Some of the responses made me think that the posters believed that it was his show that was being banned. I just wanted to clarify things based on the reports that I have heard.

Yep. That's what I thought.

I think the planet would be better with a Savage ban....

Are you also in favor of a "Weiner" ban?

Countries that were part of the European Theater of War in WWII are a bit more sensitive about racist or hate language, for understandable reasons. Germany continues to maintain a ban on the Nazi party and Nazi propaganda. I think the UK feels similarly.

Having been to Vienna in 2006 the shadow of Hitler still looms over that cities senior citizens. It's kind of eerie to say the least.

My brother lived their for 3 years says the scars that haunt the birthplace of Hitler are still very evident.

Savage does not care. He will just take that, bitch about it, maybe write a book, and make money.

I caught part of Savage's show yesterday, and he was, indeed, making a stink about being "banned in the UK." Ironically, this might help his career by bringing him free publicity!

I listened to his interview with NPR. He bellowed about the first amendment and such and I guess no one told the moron the first amendment doesn't apply in England. I guess no one also told the idiot the Brits can keep out anyone they want to. He said he was going to sue England, certainly his right and yes this will do wonders for his shows ratings although all the crackers who listen now make him the third most listened to host.

The thing that made me mad is he wanted to right to spout his views on NPR but as soon as a man called in disagreeing, he cut the man off calling him "a mental patient in his pajamas from Iowa". So the hypocrite wants his first amendment rights, but won't let someone who disagrees have their first amendment rights. That's the conservative way, right Deane?

When the NPR host tried to get him to let the guy talk, he said he had better things to do than to listen to a mental patient and the host told him to go do them, interview over.

I think anyone who takes Savage seriously is the mental patient.

Ha ha ha! I'm laughing at the British government, not at Savage or Fred & Shirley Phelps. They don't understand that the kinds of people they are dealing with are like message board trolls. Savage and the Phelps will exploit this ban for their own aims.

Here is a list of the people who were banned, along with descriptions of why they are controversial figures:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/full+list+of+uk s+least+wanted/3125427

Half are Islamic related?

Alfredo, it's already started!!

I tuned in to KXL today on the drive home. Savage was GOING OFF! Good radio actually. He's pissed proper, and you can totally tell.

Ran his intro rant twice too. Unchanged.

Well, free speech isn't a shield. In the UK it's not even that, with their stricter libel laws. Savage plans to take that angle BTW. He says he will litigate that in the UK. I'll be watching with interest on that one.

So then, we have a right to express the inner ass in all of us. We also should expect to get a solid reaction to that.

Is it possible for somebody like Savage, the Phelps, or anyone else on that list to sue to British government? To me, it seems that the deck would be stacked against the plaintiff, since (s)he or they would have to go to a British court.

I think that Savage is bluffing for the publicity. It wouldn't surprise me if he were secretly celebrating all the free publicity that he's going to get out of this. I think that if one of the people on the list made a big enough stink and had the right allies, perhaps that person might be able to pressure the British government into reversing its position and issuing an apology. However, I think that this would be done as a public relations game (in other words, find some way to publicly humiliate the British government for creating this list), rather than as a legal proceeding.

The NPR host Aok referred to is Neal Conan.
I think Neal is my new hero.

Here's the exchange:

CONAN: Let’s see if we get a caller in on the line. 800-989-8255, email: talk@npr.org. Our guest is Michael Savage, the host of “Savage Nation,” learned earlier today that he’d been banned from entering the United Kingdom.
Jeffrey is on the air. Jeffrey is calling from Des Moines, Iowa.

JEFFREY (Caller): If you listen to Michael Savage - if every time he says Islam or Muslim, you insert either Jew or Christian, he would be off the air in one day. I’ve had…

Mr. SAVAGE: Wait! I don’t want to listen to this foaming lunatic. I came on the air to give you my opinion, not to listen to someone in pajamas in a mental asylum in Iowa. So if…

(Sound of laughter)

JEFFREY: You know…

Mr. SAVAGE: No, no, you listen to me. You’re a nobody!

JEFFREY: (Unintelligible)

CONAN: Michael Savage?

Mr. SAVAGE: You’re nobody and I’m not going to talk to you!


Now, Neal, if you’d like to continue the discussion, I’ll do so. Otherwise, I have more important things to do than talk to someone in pajamas in an institution in Iowa.

CONAN: Then go do them, please.

Mr. SAVAGE: Thank you. (click)

Ha!

He will get a lot of those, if he leaves his talk radio bubble.

It's just a simple civics lesson at this point. He knows it too, which just chaps his ass, I am sure.

He got listed, and Hannity and Limbaugh didn't! Wonder if that isn't just an ego slap because he looks like easy pickings.

And then there is FOX, who didn't interview him over the deal. Wonder why that is?

Still, at home after a day behind the mike, Savage has to feel a little like crap knowing the British government just put him in the same catagory as Rev. Phelps. This will be in his wiki forever.

Skep - he probably feels warm and fuzzy being in the same category as Rev. Phelps.