Monday, December 3, 2007

Michael Savage Sues Islamic Group For Copyright Infringement

"I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear any more about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

The above statement is one that the Council on American-Islamic Relations allegedly used to draw fundraising support for their cause. Savage and his team state that this is the sentiment of the majority of the American people in regards to the like of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ilk and that was the context in which it was stated.

The lawsuit states: "CAIR attempted to silence Michael Savage by stealing his work, misrepresenting it and then seeking to have advertisers drop his show. This is a violation of Michael Savage’s rights to speech and to his religious beliefs," the action said.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Do you think this is a violation of Savage's speech and his religous beliefs?
-What do you think of using someone's words the opposite of how they meant them to profit from them?
-Do you have a high esteem for Savage?
-Do you think CAIR is in the wrong and should cease using his quotes (in or out of context)?
-Does this lawsuit have any bearing on the future of American interpretation of law regarding our freedoms of speech and religion?
-Do you think that Savage represents the majority when it comes to his stated sentiment in the quote above (in context)?


Timm said...

I'm not a huge Savage fan. That being said, yes this is infringing on his right to free speech.

How do I feel about taking somones words out of context and using them to spread a false message? I think it happens to God all the time.

Aiden Tharsos said...

Though I don't agree with everything he says, I respect him as a conservative thinker who can usually articulate his line of reasoning (though he is prone to rambling off the point).

That said, I think he was misrepresented, but I don't think his religious rights were violated. His freedom of speech should be protected with fervor, and any group wishing to silence him should only be allowed to use tactics that are not misrepresenting the truth. As with any radio/media personality, being offensive is often part of the light show necessary to keep people interested. If he steps outside the lines it should be the consumers who deal the killing blow by ceasing to support him via his ad placement. Although this isn't exactly what happened with Don Imus, there isn't a significant difference where it relates to the market self-regulating excesses of free-speech and religious expression. However there is less tolerance for racial slurs than religious ones, provided the religious slurs are directed against Islam.

I think that in this instance CAIR was wrong, but I think they or anyone should have the right to use another's words as long as they aren't misrepresenting the truth (truth with a little "t"). Otherwise, there would be little ability for journalists to report stories AND draw any meaning from them. Editorializing would be difficult. Holding others accountable for their words in a public forum would be impossible.

I think that with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, there is an interesting chance that his case will be heard there, and if so, it will increase the rights of some and curtail the rights of others.

I don't think Savage necessarily represents the majority in this particular sentiment. There are many things he says that probably resonate across the US very clearly, but I think that a significant percentage (though not a majority) of Americans would probably feel about the same way with this quote as they would from hearing many rants from televangelists. Personally, if I hear the term Islamofascism once more I might be tempted to vomit. I think what resonates more with many Americans is a problem with being told by another how they are to believe, and who is God. It seems to me that it is less an issue if the person telling you is a militant Imam or a neocon pulpit both cases, there's a good chance they aren't speaking for a power any higher than their own personal vices.

Laz said...

Well CAIR has a right to sue, whether they have a valid case, well that's something else.

According to U.S. law (not to mention common sense), no they do not have a case.

Using someone's words the opposite of how they meant them? Isn't that what politics is? Well, "It depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (sorry couldn't help myself)

I listen to Savage frequently during my short hop from the park&ride and home. While I might agree with much of what he says, his methods leave a lot to be desired.

Also, I try to keep in mind that though he is highly educated and at times articulate, his understanding remains darkened.

j razz said...

Laz, I think you got a little confused (or I did not do a good job of posting) but CAIR is being sued by Savage, not the other way around. CAIR used his quote out of context and allegedly they knowingly made it say something other than the context allowed for.

j razz

Laz said...

My bad. You're right of course.

From the limited time I've listened to his show I'd gathered that CAIR had sued him and his suit was a counter suit but yeah, that's not the case (no pun intended).

As for one of his comments,
Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave.

You could take any number of Biblical texts and reach a similar conclusion, except that the Bible does teach that we are slaves, either to sin or righteousness.

I'm guessing that Savage does not view the Bible as saying that.