Free speech opponent banned for his speech

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

So I see that far right shock jock Michael Savage has been banned from Britain for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred.

I am not that familiar with British laws pertaining to hate crimes/speech. I realize that countries have the right to regulate who enters their country, as opponents of illegal immigration will be quick to point out. My natural inclination is to err on the side of free speech unless there's a pretty compelling reason otherwise. Putting up with filth like Savage's is a necessary evil in a democratic society. Otherwise, 'allowable' speech depends on who's in power and people like Savage are allowed to turn themselves into free speech martyrs.

Civil libertarians noted that excluding people based on their political views intensified after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, it recalls Cold War fears when people like Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, a communist, was kept out of the United States. The letter cited people who been barred from entering the United States, including Adam Habib, a South African professor and human rights activist, Rafael de Jesus Gallego Romero, a Colombian priest who is a critic of his government, and Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss national who is a professor at the University of Oxford and described as a leading Islamic thinker, reported The San Francisco Chronicle.

That said, I can only laugh at how Savage and his supporters have suddenly become big defenders of free speech.

I'm not sure which is more ironic: a) the fact that the same Savage who's now whining about free speech protections used to say that it was "time to re-enact the Sedition Act," which banned criticism of the federal government* or b) the fact that one of the most vocal organizations against the practice to which Savage was subjected is that group most hated by the far right... the ACLU.


(*-Too bad he didn't get his way now that his much loathed Obama is president)


Update: The UK isn't the only country coming under criticism for its blacklists.

A nation of infants

Here's something I doubt the folks who bemoan 'political correctness' will say much about. Because according to popular fairy tale, 'political correctness' is only used against conservative ideas.

A Queensbury (NY) resident named Chris Schmidt was recently arrested for a second time for holding up a protest sign in neighboring Glens Falls that read 'Down with the fascist' on one side and 'Fuck Bush' on the other.

The man was cited for disorderly conduct.

I'm certainly no advocate of swearing being part of the political discourse. It's tasteless, demeans a serious debate and says more about the person uttering it than about the object of the invective.

But I've been an anti-war protests when 'fuck you' was one of the more mild insults hurled our way and those people weren't arrested.

Nor should they have been.

Sure such language may have offended some people. But unfortunately political speech will offend people sometimes. That's one of the hazards of democracy.

I'm offended by bumper stickers that read 'Nuke em all and let Allah sort em out.' I'm offended by bumper stickers that read 'If there hadn't been Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been Hiroshima.' I'm offended by bumper stickers that imply opposing Bush's policies is a slap in the face to the troops. I'm offended nearly every time Bush opens his mouth.

But I'd never say this kind of speech should be banned. And I'd never say these people should be arrested.

If you can say 'fuck' (or worse) against anti-war protesters, why you can't you say 'fuck' on a sign? Why are the two forms of political expression treated differently? Why is such language permitted on bumper stickers but not on a political sign?

But the thing most upset me was the remark by an observer.

"Language is a very powerful tool," Glens Falls resident David Smith told The Post-Star.

This is absolutely right, which is why I disagree with the use of such language in political discourse.

However, Smith added, "If you're going to use that kind of language, you're asking for people to get violent."

This is absolutely dumbfounding.

The irony is that such comments illustrate the protester's point. Infantilizing the population, saying they need to be protected from uncomfortable ideas, these are key traits of fascism. In fact, at the very root of fascism is the fearmongering proposition that dissent inherently leads to disorder such it must not be tolerated.

It reminds me of how some fundamentalist Islamic societies treat women. They claim that men are so out of control so women must keep their faces or heads covered at all times. They claim that the mere fact of a woman showing her face will provoke uncontrollable men to rape them. It treats men as infants (although it's the women who are made to suffer because of it).

David Smith thinks that Americans are so childish that the mere fact of one person insulting the president is going to incite them to violence. They are unable to control themselves in the face of political words.

I'd like to give Bush supporters more credit. I'd like to think that they are not so immature and out of control to 'get violent' just because someone doesn't like their man.

But if they really are that fanatical or inherently violent, then it's they who need to be restrained, not Chris Schmidt.