SanFran Supervisors Seek To Limit Michael Savage’ Freedom of Speech…Call It “Hate Speech”
I’m guessing that they missed this, because I am not seeing how San Franciso has a leg to stand on in condemning Savage. Keep in mind that Sandoval doesn’t think that the U.S. should have a military, and this just speaks for itself:
COLMES: Would you say that “illegal immigrant,” that phrase is as bad as the “n” word?
SANDOVAL: I think in, you know, 30, 40 years time when we look back, we will all realize, yes, it is as bad as the “n” word.
Sandoval, who spearheaded the measure, said condemnation of immigrants “leads to the beating of Muslim-Americans and many other Americans.”
“This attempt to vilify Latino-Americans will not be tolerated,” he said. “We are saying first that we are recognizing this speech is hateful and we are condemning it. Don’t fool yourselves. This kind of speech just incites behavior that is nothing short of hysteria. It’s the kind of hysterical behavior we saw in Nazi Germany 60 years ago.”
One of the nation’s top civil rights attorneys offered his assistance to Savage in suing Sandoval.
Daniel A. Horowitz of Oakland, Calif., wrote to Savage after Sandoval introduced his resolution.
“You have a strong federal civil rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the city of San Francisco,” he advised. “You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired.”
Horowitz said the Civil Rights Act of 1871, designed to tame the terror of the Ku Klux Klan, can be used as the basis for a federal civil rights action against the official and the city.
“You are protected by this civil rights act because you are the victim of the same type of mob terror that (the) Klan used to inflict,” wrote Horowitz. “This terror is being organized against you simply because people do not like what you say. Translated into legal language, you are being attacked by a type of terrorist because you have exercised your First Amendment rights.”
Horowitz wrote: “The Klansman in your case is wearing a suit and not a white robe. He is doing his dirty work under the hood of his elected position instead of under the coward’s hood of the Klan.”
The call for action against Savage came at the same time city supervisors were considering using taxpayer dollars to pay for immigrants’ green cards and citizenship.
Sandoval’s resolution condemns Savage for “defamatory language … against immigrants.” The resolution was in response to Savage’s July 5 broadcast, when the talker commented on a group of students who had announced they were fasting in support of changes in immigration policy.
“I would say, let them fast until they starve to death,” quipped Savage, “then that solves the problem.”
Sandoval’s resolution calls Savage’s comments “symbolic of hatred and racism.”
“I really for the life of me cannot understand why there is not more media outrage to what Michael Savage said,” Sandoval said. He plans to hold a press conference on the steps of City Hall Tuesday just before the entire Board of Supervisors votes on his resolution against Savage.
“The intolerant and racist comments of Michael Savage demand a strong condemnation,” Sandoval insisted.
In response, Horowitz wrote: “This Sandoval fellow accused you of using ‘defamatory language … against immigrants.’ Of course, this statement by Sandoval is slander. I have listened to your show. You are very complimentary of immigrants. In fact, you frequently mention that your parents were immigrants. The slander by Sandoval arises because he claims that your opposition to illegal entry into this country is somehow a stand against Hispanics. That is like saying that every Border Patrol agent and every Congress person is anti-immigrant because they don’t condone illegal border crossing.”
“I will back you, Michael, and file this lawsuit if you wish,” concluded Horowitz.
Not to be outdone, 41 Democrats boldly condemn Rush for saying something he didn’t say
The Beam in The New Republic’s Eye
Tons more at memeorandum
Does The Military Read The Huffington Post?
Phony soldiers? How about “so-called” soldiers?
October 2, 2007 - 07:36 PM on October 2nd, 2007
Isn’t Sandoval the asswipe who about a year ago said the U.S. Military should be eliminated because we don’t need it anymore?
He is another piece of excrement in the rotten sewer known as San Francisco politics.
This just shows how the American Left is the most repressive force since Stalinism. Islamofascism would be first except that it is older; it is the only entity more repressive than Leftism.
It is time to begin a political, cultural, and social War on Leftism. Leftists should be identified scourged, criticized, and verbally abused everywhere. They should be humiliated, scorned, and emotionally abused. The word Leftism should become so universally shamed that no one with a brain would ever want to be associated with it.
Let the cultural Jihad against the Left begin!…
October 3, 2007 - 05:41 AM on October 3rd, 2007
1, Robert, this is one SFL will run away from. The left never did believe in free speech for others. Hate speech was just their legal concoction to deny free speech to non-liberals. All hate speech laws must be voided, and any promoters of hate speech legislation removed from office permanently.
October 3, 2007 - 08:37 AM on October 3rd, 2007
So, calling someone an illegal immigrant is hate speech, per Sandoval? Or did Savage go beyond that?
Is that what is being said?
October 3, 2007 - 08:39 AM on October 3rd, 2007
3, Sandoval thinks there is nothing that is an Illegal Alien except White Europeans. If you check closely, Sandoval may be or have been a member of MeCHa and believes that California is actually a piece of Aztlan or of Mexico proper.
October 3, 2007 - 08:52 AM on October 3rd, 2007
3- I put up the link to Sandovals own words so that you could have an example of what he considers hate speech. In his mind, calling someone an illegal immigrant is as offensive as calling black people “niggers”. That being said, Savage has been a critic of illegal immigration on “sanctuary city” policy. Sandoval appears to be angry that Savage has a right to free speech…
October 3, 2007 - 09:16 AM on October 3rd, 2007
Proves just what a sinsiter city SAN FRANCISCO has become we should just boycott the whole darn place and see how they like losing a few thousand tourists dollars
October 3, 2007 - 09:17 AM on October 3rd, 2007
Hmm…Sandoval is an idiot.
October 3, 2007 - 09:27 AM on October 3rd, 2007
My position in Post #1 sounds extreme, but it isn’t when you look at the facts and consider the whole picture.
Much like the fact that the Islamofascists have actually been at war with the U.S. for many years (arhuably since the 1970s) and we finally strated to notice, the Leftists in America have culturally and politically been at war with traditional America for at least the same time and maybe longer. We just didn’t really take full notice, or understand the big picture. But with the infusion of Soros support, the Leftist attacks have become more and more outrageous and hyperbolic. With the Soros money and organizations, the effort has become a systematic, organized, well-financed war on American politics and culture.
The “General Betray-us” ad, the attempts to re-invigorate the “fairness” doctrine, the focused and well-financed and planned smear campaigns at even the local political level, and now the coordinated attacks on Free Speech (Limbaugh and Savage) are clear evidence of all of this.
So instead of saying let the war begin, I’d say it began a long time ago. Much like the Islamofascists, whose parallel war on Western Civilization was declared by them, the Left has de facto altready declared war on us and has long since started.
We are war with Leftism. It is a fact.
October 3, 2007 - 09:32 AM on October 3rd, 2007
8- I think that it could be argued that we are in the midst of another civil war..
October 3, 2007 - 09:36 AM on October 3rd, 2007
9, that is why the Left is always trying to ban private gun ownership. The Left thinks it can win if words and shystering are the only weapons in this civil war.
October 3, 2007 - 07:38 PM on October 3rd, 2007
Did you hear about the resolution their trying to frame in the House expressing Democratic solidarity with their “Muslim Brothers” around the world? I S$%T you not. We’re at war with these Islamofascists and the Democrats are trying to pass a resolution expressing their solidarity with them? Is there any doubt that these idiots are un American?
October 3, 2007 - 08:11 PM on October 3rd, 2007
FAO: See Post #8. I believe we are solidly in a cultural, political, and social war with the Left. They started it a long time ago; we are finally realizing it.
That’s why they have allied themselves with our enemies; the enemy of their enemy is their friend.
October 4, 2007 - 03:48 PM on October 4th, 2007
Hell yeah we are in the midst of a cultural “war” of sorts here in the US.
This struggle between Left and Right has been around since the begining, and really took off here in America with the Labor Wars of the early 20th century.
But THIS, what we’re talking about here, really started post-WW2, with the integration of the armed forces, public school integration and the early civil rights movement of the 50’s.
Long-accepted social institutions and long-trusted social mores began to be questioned and scrutinized.
Conservatives like yourselves are nothing more than the decendants of those who were opposed, frightened and threatened by the civil-rights movement.
The very term “conservative” or “traditionalist” harkens back to the time before all this turmoil to when everybody just KNEW THEIR PLACE and didn’t rock the boat, ask too many questions, or demand better treatment.
My side, the Left, questioned these institutions and social mores and we found them to be lacking – and needing change.
Your side, finds comfort in tradition and with maintaining the status-quo.
In my honest opinion, I think for American to be strong and unique – we need BOTH sides to be vocal. This cultural “war”, is a good thing. It keeps Americans debating what they feel is wrong with America and what they can do to change it. It keeps things fresh and out in the open.
October 4, 2007 - 05:16 PM on October 4th, 2007
Except now that it has turned into an ugly and destructive phase: The Soros-financed, organized fifth-column that is openly providing aid and comfort to America’s enemies during wartime.
Look what it has turned the democrat party into! A cesspool of anti-American activity and hate America propaganda.
October 4, 2007 - 10:43 PM on October 4th, 2007
Not surprising that SAN FRANCISCO is so hostle to good persons its the HQ to the CHURCH OF SATAN
October 4, 2007 - 10:44 PM on October 4th, 2007
“Conservatives like yourselves are nothing more than the decendants of those who were opposed, frightened and threatened by the civil-rights movement.”
That’s pure idiocy- revisionist history balderdash.
Democrats were the biggest opposition to the southern civil rights movement. The left also invented Communism- a idealogical economical model that degenerates to a state form of legalized slavery.
Don’t be an elitist, sitting on your glass house roof slinging stones hoping no one will sling back. I’m sitting here with a catapult.
October 4, 2007 - 11:01 PM on October 4th, 2007
“Democrats were the biggest opposition to the southern civil rights movement.”
——————————-
Conservative Southern Dixie-Crats were opposed to the civil rights movement. They were Democrat in name only, and only for a short time at that.
My point stands, and is actually reinforced.
They were Socially Conservative.
They were afraid of change.
————————–
So the Left “invented” Communism, you say.
I would counter that the Right “invented” Fascism.
October 5, 2007 - 06:13 AM on October 5th, 2007
13,17, no the left are the poster children of mental illness. They insist on doing things that are wrong repeatedly expecting a different result.
October 5, 2007 - 07:51 AM on October 5th, 2007
“Conservative Southern Dixie-Crats were opposed to the civil rights movement. They were Democrat in name only, and only for a short time at that.
My point stands, and is actually reinforced.
They were Socially Conservative.
They were afraid of change.”
Denial gets you no where- your point flonders.
They were Democrats that opposed civil rights. Vestages still remain in the forms of Jimmy Carter (anti-Semite) and Robert Byrd (KKK member). Many social consvatives supported the movement, most notable one Dr. Martin Luther King who actually spear headed it. He was a consevative baptist minister.
“Historically, the solidly Democratic South had emerged in the wake of Reconstruction, the period following the Civil War when the Republican Party worked to help African-Americans make the transition from slavery to freedom, and to secure their civil, political and voting rights.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
Note the part “when the Republican Party worked to help African-Americans make the transition from slavery to freedom”.
Placing in onus of opposition to the civil rights movement on one political iealology is a misunderstanding of history. A liberal institution, a branch of the Democrat party, were the biggest opposition to civil rights formed because Republicans were trying to help African America make the adjustment.
October 5, 2007 - 08:27 AM on October 5th, 2007
Ted….the name of the bureau was Freedmans Bureau and it was set up by the Republicans to help the former slaves get schools started, negotiate contracts with plantation owners for wages, settle disputes, etc. It did alot of good with scarce resources but eventually folded. That’s when the democrats got a foothold into getting the Jim Crow laws started.
October 6, 2007 - 12:30 AM on October 6th, 2007
I’m not going to go through the list of Democrat actions to repress the blacks over the past 150 years. I don’t feel like doing that much typing. The Democrats have historically been the blacks’ worst enemy. They just keep lying to them about it. Why else do you think they are so anxious to insure that inner city blacks don’t have the opportunity to get out of the pathetic excuse of inner city NEA controlled government schools? As long as the Democrats keep them uneducated, they’ll keep voting Democratic. I stand by my earlier observation that if Liberal Democrats are so smart, why do so many of them live in poverty on welfare? Here are a couple more thoughts to ponder. If liberal Democrats are so concerned with the welfare of other people, why do conservative Republicans donate so much more to charity? If liberal Democrats are so in favor of free speech, why do they assault conservative speakers on college campuses? If liberal Democrats are so supportive of the troops, why do they spit on them in airports? (As far as I’m concerned, that’s justifiable grounds for a VERY serious ass kicking.)