Michael Savage is still banned in Britain (Christmas, controversial, radical)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ed Shultz called Laura Ingraham a ****. Tell me that isn't crossing the line and completely misogynistic as well as ignorant. But maybe he's entitlesd, he after all a *****, somebody who jumped to liberla talk radio only becuse his career was going nowhere in the more competetive conservative talk radio circuit.
MSNBC sure can find them. Michael Smerconish did the same thing when MSNBC dangled a little money and a chance for national exposure under his nose.
If agreeing or disagreeing is loathing the first amendment, then your post qualifies as such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy Tea
Ed Shultz called Laura Ingraham a ****. Tell me that isn't crossing the line and completely misogynistic as well as ignorant. But maybe he's entitlesd, he after all a *****, somebody who jumped to liberla talk radio only becuse his career was going nowhere in the more competetive conservative talk radio circuit.
MSNBC sure can find them. Michael Smerconish did the same thing when MSNBC dangled a little money and a chance for national exposure under his nose.
You see people agreeing with the Brit approach as enemies to free speech. When you have the capacity to be that polar, you've the tendency to be one who believes in suppressing speech unless it is in agreement with your whim.
Actually, it is found in the constitution of many other countries, including the UK. However, most of those those countries do not shy away from openly acknowledging what is unacceptable. In the USA, such restrictions are undocumented, so "completely free" is merely a lip service to present the perception of free speech as the reality.
I believe there is a Human Rights Commission in Canada that rules on matters of "hate speech", is there not? And in Germany revisionist historians have served prison time for their comments about the Holocaust. Geert Wilders, the outspoken Dutch critic of the growing influence of Muslims in Europe, has had his share of problems in the Netherlands. Australia has an implied freedom of speech.
Quote:
But Dutch judges moved in January 2009 to try Mr Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination. Explaining their decision, they said: "By attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, he also insulted Muslim believers. In a democratic system, hate speech is considered to be so serious that it is in the general interest to draw a clear line."
The High Court of Australia has found an implied guarantee of freedom of political speech in the Constitution. This means that Australians are free to talk about politics. But that's it.
All other forms of speech can be restricted by Parliament. For example, the federal Parliament passed extensive sedition laws recently. In Australia, the internet is censored. And many computer games, books and films are banned or censored.
No other country that I am aware of has the same degree of "freedom of speech" that the US has.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.