(Note: the following is by the inscrutable Mandarin, but posted by the Czar until that damn Volgi gets him his own account.)
British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has decided to ban radio talk-show host Michael Savage from entering the United Kingdom. Her reasoning for the ban was Savage’s violence inducing rhetoric. Now I admit that I listen to the Savage Nation on the drive home from work, and while he is very opinionated, I have never heard him advocate or call for violence against anyone. I think the real problem that the Home Secretary has is that Savage is staunchly anti-progressive in his views, in much the same ways as Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh.
On his show, Savage asked the question that I am paraphrasing here, “When did she ever hear my show since I’m not syndicated in England, and what show is she referring to where I incited violence?” I’m sure that she has never heard the show, but that is not important to her. What is important is that she is demonstrating that once again progressives will choose to silence any dissenting points of view (or the perception of dissent) rather than let them be voiced, and then respond to them point-by-point.
I’m also sure that the “fellow travelers” in this country will seize upon this to say, “See, our enlightened European cousins understand the threat of these anti-progressive view points poisoning the airwaves; therefore, we should take steps to control it here in the U.S.” Now I understand that the citizens of the United Kingdom don’t benefit from or share our First Amendment rights, but you would think that the country that gave the world the Magna Carta would be a little more careful giving the government the rights to restrict what is said.
We don’t need the First Amendment to protect speech that is safe and that everyone agrees with, we need it to protect speech that is controversial and that questions what those who would control our lives are doing.