Posted by: As I See It by Arnie | August 12, 2007

Attack against Michael Savage is against talk radio, is against free speech.

What gives a San Francisco city supervisor the right to attack Michael Savage?   What power does Savage have to make laws?   None.  What power does the city supervisor, Gerardo Sandoval, have to make laws?  Plenty.  As a member of the Board of supervisors, Sandoval can recommend and vote on legislative items presented by the board.  Sandoval has a direct relationship to passing laws in San Francisco. 

So, what goes?  Gerardo Sandoval introduced a resolution “condemning defamatory language used by Michael Savage against the immigrant community”

WHEREAS, Radio personality Michael Savage, in his program “Savage Nation,” urged the death of those students by declaring that the demonstrators should “fast until they starve to death”; and

WHEREAS, On Wednesday, August 15th, 2007, community organizations and immigrant rights groups have scheduled a vigil to take place in front of the KNEW station offices in San Francisco, urging the termination of Michael Savage’s show; now, therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors condemns Michael Savage’s comments against the immigrant community; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That this speech is deemed by the Board as symbolic of hatred and racism which is neither endorsed nor tolerated by the City and County of San Francisco;

So, the City of San Francisco is supporting and advocating that certain organizations conduct an overt vigil in front of the radio station, and the City also urges the station to fire Savage.  Free speech is in danger in America.  The right of a broadcast medium to hire who they want is in danger in America.  That is, if these people get their way and the courts do not censure these supervisors for tying such a maneuver, which would limit our right to speak freely.  Savage was talking about “illegal” immigrants.   Sandoval is distorting facts.  Period.  Sandoval is guilty of defamation of character.

The bottom line is that Sandoval did not like the remarks that Savage made, so he goes for the jugular vein of Savage, to shut him up completely. But Michael does not go down easily, as he is being supported by millions of listeners, and Daniel Horowitz, an attorney in San Fran is encouraging Michael to file a lawsuit against the board. 

“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.   Article on WND.

“The intolerant and racist comments of Michael Savage demand a strong condemnation,” Sandoval insisted.

In response, Horowitz said:  “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.

Knowing a bit about Michael Savage, he does not run from a fight.  Bring them down Mike.  So far, our first Amendment rights are superior to that itty bitty board of supervisors in San Francisco.

Update 8/15

The resolution has failed, as a vote count last night was 9-1, the lonely vote for Savages’s right to free speech by a third generation American from China, which sent the resolution to a committee, which supposedly is a polite way of letting the issue die.

A gutsy, courageous move against the rest of the board by Ed Jew, to cast the lone vote in favor of Savage.   “For the record, I do not agree with comments allegedly made by Mr. Savage, but the First Amendment gives him the right to make those comments.”   Thank God, someone in San Fran still has their head on straight and can still read and honor the constitution.  These others are blinded by some far out vision of a utopian dream where everyone agrees on everything.   What is it that they have been drinking and smoking?  What gives them the right to censor what another person says?   Read the entire article on WND. 

A rally was held in front of the court house yesterday by Sandavol and perhaps a dozen people showed up in protest against Savage.  And still only one vote in support of free speech.  Would you call it a purposeful agenda to silence Michael?


This is not the end of the battle in America to quench our rights to speak out against anything.   It’s just getting started folks.  Be aware.  The looney left does not die easy.



  1. Standing up for Michael Savage is a tough gig. This guy is radioactive, and in general gives the conservative cause a black eye for the most part. Yes, I tend to agree with his analysis most of the time, yet I really do not condone his outrageous solutions to all of our problems.

    The guy is a flame thrower, and his completely outrageous commentary is awfully hard to listen to for very long, and I am an ultra conservative guy.

    He is just not in the same league as Ann Coulter, since he just doesn’t have the looks Ann does to carry the day in the end.

    I just think that Michael Savage is just over the top on too many issues to last much longer than Lenny Bruce did, once he started launching the blue stuff.

  2. This is not so much about Michael Savage as it is about our freedoms to be a Michael Savage. I only listen to Michael once in awhile, and sometimes he does roll over the hill in his rants, but even so, the government does not have the right to demand that his station fire the guy and organize a firestorm of protesters to picket the place of his employment.

    A very dangerous precedent can be set here.

    Our free market system works and eventually the bad ones are thrown out by the people deciding on their own not to tune in and listen, as the people did with Al Franken and Air America.

  3. Good point, Arnie, but I’m not sure the slippery slope argument applies here.

    Just as you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, one should be compelled to refrain from yelling “kill all the illegals, and nuke Mecca” into a microphone that broadcasts to a national audience, using public airwaves.

    Hitler had a stage from which he was able to use his arguably brilliant oratory skills that ultimately resulted in the deaths of millions.

    (Although I’m told that once you throw Hitler into the argument, you lose….)

  4. Doc Steech,

    I’ll still have to side with Michael, a private citizen, rather than giving a government appointed or elected official the “right” to censor a citizen who does not conform to their concepts. That is the slippery slope.

    Michael’s listeners knew what he was talking about, that he was exposing an absurdity by being absurd. Again, the free market should sort this out, not the government mandating and forcing obedience.

  5. I think our issue is a technicality.

    Perhaps, rather than the government unilaterally pulling the plug on Michael (which I agree is a very bad precedent), or stand by until he withers on the vine while his listening audience dries up, We the People should address the standards we expect flame throwers like Michael Savage to live up to, and clearly draw a well defined line which folks like Michael must not cross.

    The same folks who made the ruling about not yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater need to expand that sentiment to our airwaves.

    Of course, I am not familiar with his latest bomb in all its detail, and so I can’t really speak as to whether this particular incident rises to my level of outrageousness, but I am familiar with Dr. Savage’s stuff, and this is really not new. And while Rush Limbaugh uses the “pointing out the absurd by being adsurd” gig to a high level of professionalism, I don’t think Michael uses this approach. I think he is just absurd, and doesn’t know it.

    The guy is radioactive, and sooner or later will go the way of Lenny Bruce. I am guessing you would opt for the “wither on the vine” solution to Michael’s “opinions,” eh Arnie?

  6. Doc Steech,

    You got that right. I will go for the “wither on the wine” method of the free market system every time.

    Who are we to address the standards by which ‘we’ expect others to adhere to? Those standards have already been declared in the constitution and how about just the rule of law. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not lie. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors property. Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother.

    Hey, it’s hard enough to live up to those standards, and then we want to water them down because we don’t want to strive to keep them anymore. It’s too hard. It gets in my way of my fun. My dad is a drunk, so why should I honor him? On and on.

    Free speech must be respected even when we do not agree.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: