Conservative US shock-jock to sue Wacky Jacqui Controversial US DJ Michael Savage has loudly declared he will sue UK home secretary Jacqui Smith after appearing on a "banned list" of 22 people unwelcome in Britain for "fostering extremism or hate", as the BBC puts it. Savage, described as "conservative", objects strongly to finding himself alongside two members of a …
Is best viewed as a comedy of manners.
Maybe that's Dear Jacqui's real calling in life: the protagonist in a series of surrealistic comedies.
Or perhaps she could move to the US (if they'll let her in) and join Michael Savage on his shock-jock show as a straight man for his jokes.
If you create a list of 21 people and say "these people don't live by our ideals" doesn't that imply that everyone not on the list gets a thumbs-up? Seems like there might be better candidates than some moronic radio personality.
Ah well, the case might be good for some laughs at the least.
The guy sounds like a Grade A right-wing nutjob (after all anyone that describes our borderline-fascist Home Secretary a 'liberal' is obviously several books short of a bonfire). Everything I have read about him seems to indicate that he is a decidedly unpleasant and frankly deluded individual.
Having said all of that he does have a point.
No chance of any legal action getting anywhere as far as I can see, but on some level I really wish it would. If freedom of speech only applies to people that say things you like or agree with that isn't freedom at all.
Problem goes back to the Pinochet case. Licking his homicidal arse created a precedent which we are to deal with for centuries to come. We should have let the Spanish get him (ditto for some Israeli government members).
Anyone should be welcome to come, but anyone should be eligible to be sued as per British law or the law of EU/Other country Britain has legal assistance treaties with. The current idiocy where Britain does not extradite even to countries which it has treaties with should stop.
...the secret 6 are moslem? Publishing the full list would upset the rather tidy (more or less) 50/50 split between isamic extreemists and other nutters on the list. I suppose it wouldn't be in the public interest to know that the list was targetting one group of nutters more than the others...
>>"banned list" of 22 people unwelcome in Britain for "fostering extremism or hate"<<
And even that seems an overestimate - but great nonetheless! Wacki can take their DNA, tap their internet connections, give them ID cards etc and f*&% the hell out of the rest of our private business and save a few hundred billion to boot!
Jacqui Smith said "If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country"
Most of the British have standards and values that include freedom and personal privacy. So why has she not put herself on the list? I'd love to see her nip off on a junket and be refused re-entry...
Hoist by her own retard?
Moronic hatemonger banned by lunatic witch - it would all be vaguely amusing had these two clowns not somehow become a prominent celebrity and home secretary of the UK respectively. Much though the world would be a better place without the likes of Savage, it seems he's right for once. Trust our very own Wacky Jacqui to outdo such a worthless specimen of humanity in the idiocy stakes.
On the one hand, free speech means that you don't persecute people based on what they say. On the other hand, this twunt has said things which could have encouraged others to commit violent acts, which is surely a good thing to stop. I think I'm inclined to the former option, having the mental disorder of liberalism.
On a related note, I did a search for Stormfront, which according to the Home Office press release was a website set up by one of the people on the list, and an Apple reseller of the same name was the third result.
The Magna Carta was originally a charter between King John and the barons and nobles. So as and when what's-his-name gets a peerage he can invoke the Magna Carta. Until then .... see figure 1.
And, is it possible that the Mayflower was an early version of the B-Ark?
Mine's the one with the velum bound copy of HHGTTG.
Too bad you guys won't let it in, then refuse to send it back.
The sad detritus of the Rethuglicans' War On Brains(TM) is evident in this rather...interesting...bit:
"Savage has threatened to deploy 'top **First Amendment attorneys**' to represent him 'in a major international case'."
Duh. I never realized that Britain had signed onto our Constitution. Apparently, Savage is in posession of...intelligence...to the contrary.
You guys need a dunce cap icon.
Firstly i think this is a disgrace Micheal Savage seems like a great guy i have listened to his radio shows before. he should be welcomed into this country with open arms, and invited to fix this mess that the government has got us into.
secondly. if there is a list of banned people why the hell is it only 22 people i can think of tones of the top of my head that should be banned. i bet you Bin Laden isnt even on it!!!
As a resident in the US (and US citizen), why do we have to be the ones stuck with this overinflated sack of ego (and all of his listeners, who undoubtedly also live here)?
If the UK tells that other shock jackass -- Howard Stern, I believe? -- that he can't come in, perhaps my wife and I will try to move across the pond! She's always wanted to see Wales...
IGMC - it's rainy in England, innit?
This guy is everything you hate about the US. You know about Sarah Palin, George Bush and maybe even Rush Limbaugh. But this guy makes all of these look like cultured humanitarians.
His viewpoints include the belief that the US can do as it pleases in the world and we should be grateful for it. All Muslims are terrorists, as are homosexuals and immigrants (legal or otherwise).
He believes in free speech for himself and those that support his extreme right viewpoints, but not anyone who dares to criticize or challenge the validity of what they're saying.
There is an extremist minority here in the US that listens to his racist diatribe daily. And yes, he stirs up hatred and violence.
People that listen to his show have recently committed murder, claiming they did so because they were so upset at what the current democratically elected President is doing to their country.
They couldn't get at the President so their nutter-logic said that made it okay to kill two police officers or commit mass murder in a church service.
This is his version of free speech and democracy, where the extreme right may do as it pleases in response to anyone who dares to do or say things they don't approve of.
In the US "Liberal" means anyone who wants greater government spending. Often the ideology comes with intolerance for any criticism of certain protected groups (racial/ethnic minorities, the poor, sometimes even avowed enemies of the nation). The definition of a liberal is much more narrow than in other countries. Often I find that in some respects, American conservatives (at least those described as conservative on fiscal issues, not on cutural ones) are often more similar to British and European liberals than conservatives.
I don't think Savage is a liberal by any definition. Regardless of her other beliefs, Wacky Jacqui would have definitely been considered a liberal in the US after she banned Geert Wilders from Britain for his criticism of Islam.
"Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded."
WOW. What about the masses of immigrants that decide that they dont want to live as we do?
And that we should bend over backwards.
GO-GO-GO
I am no expert, but I thought Savage was all for ripped up and throwing away Magna Carta in the USA, so as to keep prisoners forever in places where they could be tortured for (apparently) the pleasure of the guards. Magna Carta doesn't cover free speech, and we don't have a First Amendment, although he may be surprised that US law, like US dollars, isn't a universal currency.
As he preaches on a pro-torture, anti-law, anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-woman, well, really, anti- anyone but chaps like himself platform, where rights should be removed from all those he detests, then I am glad to say that he doesn't fit here. I am reluctant to support bans on free speech, but there are limits to everything. Just as (I hope) as as a group would protest and silence some nutter in the same room who began spewing anti-semitic or racist garbage in our presence, so we as a society say 'not at our picnic, thanks all the same', especially as it is a bit tough on the victims of the hate speech to have to tolerate being called horrible things without let-up for the greater principle of free speech. If you have ever been on the receiving end of a vicious hate speech, as I have, you know that it is 'assault' in the legal sense of the word, and feels it.
What I hate is the implication that if we somehow need protecting from his views - let him come over the Atlantic and we'll all turn into bigoted, autist-bashers. A moron's a moron, where-ever he's standing and I'm still going to ignore his right-wing nonsense, wherever he says it.
Being allowed to say and think what you like, so long as you don't cause actual harm to others? Clearly a British ideal Jaqui doesn't share, so perhpas she'd like to add herself to the list?
The government is banning people now too. Well at least we get to see _this_ list, oh hang on, no we don't, half the list is secret, FFS!
For the love of god, I've met plenty of people in the pub with heinous terrible ill informed hateful ignorant opinions, they are not going to infect me with their idiocy because they are idiots. I can hold my own against idiots, I can hold my own against Nick Clegg or whover the cheif idiot is these days. Banning these people means we don't get to publicly rip their stupid opinions to shreds, correct their fallacies, humiliate them in public and discredit their 'teachings', instead it empowers them, giving credence to the idea they are an actual threat to us rather than the pitiful big gobbed sad cases they are, it gives them a reputation and they can legitimately claim they are being discriminated against - do we want that?
If they've been convicted for serious crimes I believe we have the option of denying them entry already, if they're just a chauvinist douchebag with some unsavoury opinions then let 'em in, it's not like we don't have those already, it not like Rabies, just let 'em in and let them spend their money, shoot their mouth off and fuck off again, god knows the economy could use some tourist dollar & maybe, just maybe, their big mouths might get 'em a well deserved kicking!
Has anyone in the UK government actually listened to Dr Savage? I listen to him every night during my commute home.
According to the BBC Dr Savage is a "Controversial daily radio talk-show host. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.
His views on immigration, Islam, rape and autism have caused great offence in the US. "
Since I have been listening, he has NEVER once encouraged his listeners to engage in criminal acts. In fact the opposite is true. A few weeks ago a caller asked Savage if he would lead the next revolution in the US should criminal politics come to that. Savaged responded that he is just a radio talk show host and not a revolutionary leader.
Savage preaches Border, Language and Culture. Border - enforce our sovereign borders to prevent the likes of Mexican Swine Flu infected illegal immigrants from spreading diseases. You wouldn't let diseased meats into the food supply would you? Prevent illegal aliens from getting free health care that the states taxpayers have to pick up the tab for. Language - if the US were to have a common language, it would become a stronger country without the communication barriers of having so many languages. Culture - having a unified culture would also make the US a healthier nation.
Al Franken ACTIONS greatly offend me. So do the ACTIONS of criminal politicians in both parties - both nation and local - robbing this once great country blind through bailouts. Why aren't they on the UK ban list?
Dr Savage is a logical man. He has reasons for his beliefs. In the US we have the Constitutionally protected right to free speech and free press. I don't agree with all of his views but his positions are well reasoned and thought out. He is not some raving mad lunatic hater. He is in a completely different class than the murderers and scum on that list.
His transgressions are ideas and words, not actions.
Jaqui herself has caused 'great offence in the US" by putting Dr Savage on this list. By that measure shouldn't she be on the list herself??
Better look out - the thought police are on their way and the will take us ALL away if we aren't careful!
(PS you can listen to him on the web if you are interested in getting the real story)
I for one had never heard of Savage, nor did I know anything of his views of messages, until The Lunatic Witch (I rather like that) stuck her oar in.
Does anyone else think that she's rather missing the point about modern communications? It is no longer necessary to get to Speakers' Corner in order to get your message to the masses, nor even to be in the country.
Oh, well. Another Epic Fail for our noble and righteous Government....
Paris, because we might as well have something decorative to look at as our nation goes down the toilet.
So is he going to sue in a US court or a UK one? Any US judge worth his gavel would probably say it's out of his jurisdiction, any UK judge would hopefully invoke the Streisand effect and throw the case out - had he not made a fuss about it, I suspect that most of us would have cheerfully forgotten him within a week. Or perhaps find in his favour and award him a penny in damages but not costs.
...is one of the most despicable, wretched ingrates I have ever had the displeasure of listening to (I believe at the time he was saying that anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Christian should be kicked out of the US) but banning someone from a country because he's an asshole is a pretty stupid use of political power.
It may not be a bad thing for Mr. Savage to never enter the UK, although as a US citizen it's somewhat depressing as it lowers the chances he'll leave. But the implications of and precedents set by the UK's banning anyone it doesn't like, for a vague set of random reasons, are alarming indeed.
In the States, Mr. Savage is undesirable, though not necessarily *an* undesirable.
If you could please let him in, THEN put him on a terrorist watch list, we'd be most grateful.
Hey, the man is overworked. He needs a (perpetual) Caribbean holiday.
Posting as Paris, since Michael and Jacqui have just enough brains between them to match hers..
Savage is a blowhard, plain and simple. For my friends on the Euro side of the pond who likely don't have much to go on about him, save what's been written about him, let me add that Savage is really just a radio personality with strong opinions. He's not a lot different than many of the commentators on our News/Talk TV channels, people like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow. They all come with sharp tongues, strong opinions and broad political agendas. And they're all in the business of attracting a crowd, so they (or their employer) can charge advertisers outrageous sums of money. I've seen Arbitron reports from several markets around the country and for several different ratings periods, and there's no debating the fact that Savage has pretty damn good listener share and audience numbers.
Personally, I think Savage should be sending the 'lunatic witch' a nice fat gratuity checque, rather than threatening her with civil action. In the radio business there's a expression to describe events such as this whole flap - IT'S FREAKIN' RATINGS GOLD, BABY; RATINGS GOLD!
Savage has threatened to deploy "top First Amendment attorneys" to represent him "in a major international case".
Yep. As if their learned legal arguments mean a flying fuc*k in Britain.
...major international nutcase, more like....
The man's a self-confessed player of the pink piccolo. (Paris, natch!)
Not a comment on this particular case but...
I find something depressing that HM Gov's reaction to failing schools / hospitals / paedophiles / tax evaders / shock-jock DJs / whatever, is to "name and shame" by publishing lists.
As if that was the proper business of government, or likely to achieve anything except sensational headlines.
"The guy sounds like a Grade A right-wing nutjob (after all anyone that describes our borderline-fascist Home Secretary a 'liberal' is obviously several books short of a bonfire). Everything I have read about him seems to indicate that he is a decidedly unpleasant and frankly deluded individual."
He may just SOUND like one though -- shock jocks (for those who don't know) make their money, well, trying to shock the audience, and generally sounding like a big horse's ass in the process. Some are perhaps dicks in real life but some just play it up on the air and are likely totally normal.
Here's my guess on the "final 6":
1) Buzz Killington
2) I.P. Freely
3) Amanda Huginkiss
4) I.C. Wiener
5) Busty St. Claire (and the aliases, Busty Larue & Hooty McBoob).
6) "Your mom"
You have to view someone like Savage in the American context. I can guarantee you that he knows that he can get the all the high-powered constituional lawyers he wants, but its not going to do him any good in the UK, because the U.S. constituion doesn't apply there.
What Savage is doing (and why some of his past statements look so looney) is throwing a little red meat to his listeners. Basically these shock jocks are in the entertainment business with a little political commentary thrown in. If Savage just lied down and took Jacqui Smith's ban without comment, then he would loose some credibility with his listenership over backing down meekly to a lefty Euro-pol.
Still, I have to say he has something of a point about how he ended up on this list considering how many genuinely dangerous people there are in the world. If Britain let in Savage, they would probably find that the average Tyra Banks/Madonna visit causes a lot more real disruption to society than this guy ever would.
Paris--either because she would also cause more commotion in the UK than Savage would, or because she would make a better Home Secretary than Jacqui Smith. Take your pick of which.
Why is the Home Secretary wasting her time banning people who had no intention of traveling to the UK anyway? Savage had no intention of traveling to the UK. Two on the list are in foreign prisons FFS! Surely she has something more important to do than sit on her fat arse thinking up who she wouldn't let into the country if they were to try to get in? (and get out of gaol in some cases). Any why only 21 worldwide? Charles Manson? Lay out the red carpet..... Joseph Fritzel? Come on down! You're welcome!
Savage is right on one issue at least- Jacqui really is a lunatic.
But in the interests of Christian conservative decency I can only phonetically spell it out to you..
see you en tee.
And I have indeed listened to this man, in reply to the freedom-hater who claims none of us have.
I live in Alaska and I'm forced to listen to his diatribe on my weekly commute home. I travel through mountain passes and the only radio station available for weather and traffic reports is the same one this cunt (shit sorry) preaches on.
I can absolutely and categorically confirm he promotes racism and hatred of anything non-white and Christian. The lies he tells whips his followers up into a fervour and he's constantly taking calls from them telling him how they want to kill this person or shoot that type of individual. Of course he tells them not to do it, if he didn't he'd be sued himself and any advertising millions he's earning would be long gone. But that doesn't change the fact the main content of the show generates extreme hatred and violence towards those he rants against.
"Mexican illegals carry swine flu into the US put all of us at risk."
No actually they don't, your co-worker with regular flu poses more of a risk to you than some immigrant whose probably thousands of miles away from where you live, possibly carrying a virus already proven to be less dangerous and less contagious than the common flu most people get every year.
But that doesn't stop the slack-jawed wankers with shotguns and assault rifles from heading to the border to "protect" their country.
Of course the thing they don't care to believe is not every Hispanic in the US is an illegal immigrant. Many are Puerto Rican (my wife for example) or Cuban or legal US citizens of South and Central American descent. So my wife travels to Mexico for a vacation with her Hispanic family, to an area that has no fucking flu victims of any kind, and she's harassed as she returns by rednecks with guns.
Why? Because of cunts (shit, sorry again) like Michael Weiner preaching hate on the radio to any psycho fuck that will listen.
Slippery slope? We already have lists of people banned from traveling, let alone entering the UK or the US. They're called terrorist watch lists and he most definitely deserves to be on one of them.
...unfortunately part of the price we pay in the United States for the right of free speech.
Those who doubt the US takes the 1st Amendment seriously, well, all I can do is point at Michael Savage while gagging and averting my eyes.
He's a lunatic with a radio show and he's not afraid to use it. Sigh. Still, he can say what he likes, and hold whatever opinions he pleases. So long as all he does is shoot his mouth off nobody's going to do anything--as pleasant a fantasy as throttling the idiot might be. :)
Personally, give me a hundred Michael Savages (turning green from the thought) instead of one censorship law or book burning mob any day.
Besides, why ban KKK and neo-nazis and all the rest? If they're given free speech too *at least we know who they are and what they are thinking*.
There is a method to the madness...
You seem to have missed out on the humor in having someone who "preaches Border, Language and Culture" all of the sudden turn around and start whining because someone else wants to close *their* borders to *him*. Or the delicious hypocrisy of someone who has little use for civil libertarians running to his "top First Amendment attorneys" when it is *his* free speech ox that is getting gored (the additional humor in Savage's apparent lack of understanding that the First Amendment is only the law of the land within the US, not the UK, has already been mentioned).
@Mike Richards
"Can't they both lose?"
You took the words right out of my mouth.
"If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by"
Thats a bit bloody rich coming from someone who was quite happy to use taxpayers money to maintain and update their family home, and yet, can only spout "Its within the rules". Obviously has no sense of what is morally right and wrong. Just the type of moneygrabbing pig with her snout in the public trough we need as Home Secretary...
Just been listening to this bloke interviewing Christopher Monckton. Seems pretty balanced to me...
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5614
Anyway, the point is, I can hear him and probably if I looked around a bit more I could see video of him. If he were to actually physically come to this country, I would not get a chance to meet him, I am a nobody!!
So, what is the point of this action by the lovely Waqui? Perhaps she just want to inflict her corporeal presence on me by getting her lardy image on the telly.
By the way, there seems to be a divergence between the US and the UK over the meaning of the words, conservative and liberal. In the UK conservatism and liberalism are very similar, the main difference being that conservatives believe in hang 'em and flog 'em, and liberals don't (and I am not talking about the LibDums here, they are social democrats).
Also, I didn't notice that scion of good behaviour, Robert Mugabe on Waqui's list; perhaps he is one of the unmentionables.
Re: the 16 names / 22 names thing.
You say this is because "naming them would not be in the public interest".
What this actually means is:
"There are six blank spaces which we'll fill in as and when someone we haven't thought of buys a ticket to England and the Daily Mail throws a hissy fit over it."
I am gobsmacked that this guy can call himself conservative! Here in Blighty being a Conservative is to be a member of a slighty right of centre political party, over the pond it seems the word means something completely different.
I have a couple of US relations through marriage, when I told them I was a Conservative voter they disowned me there and then and refuse to speak to me anymore.
Now I know why, they obviously think I am a Christian Fundamentalist Bigot!
[quote]I am reluctant to support bans on free speech, but there are limits to everything[/quote]
Unfortunately; freedom defined is freedom denied - put an artificial limit on free speech and it is no longer free speech.
Freedom: the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will.
[quote]I for one had never heard of Savage, nor did I know anything of his views of messages, until The Lunatic Witch...
Does anyone else think that she's rather missing the point about modern communications?[/quote]
Until she puts his website on the IWF for inciting hatred... and 'The Lunatic Witch' +1, we have a new winner! She is too, the public face of Gordon Browns dark side.
'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'
The USA has put Chris Moyles on their refused-entry list because he said "BOOBIES!" once, and they don't like that kind of filth.
Seriously, there are 6 un-named people on that list. Out of the following, at least one must not be on the list, and therefore allowed into the UK:
* Osama Bin Laden
* Kim Jong-Il
* George W. Bush
* Robert Mugabe
* The Ghost of Ayatollah Khomeini
* Dr Evil
* Me
All the above have said naughty things that the Home Secretary doesn't like! What horribly, villainous nasty peoples they are!
Vote now! Who should we refuse entry to the UK out of these contenders??*
*please get permission from the bill-payer before voting. Voting costs £10 from a BT landline, and considerably more from a mobile. Under the Terms and Conditions of uk.gov policy, votes will be ignored and the decision will be made by rolling a dice.
"Savage preaches Border, Language and Culture. "
Then you might like the views of a certain Eugene Terreblanche. A South African genetleman known for such classics as
"I do not believe in laws. I believe in borders."
And the slightly older view of one country, one people, one leader.
I'll spare you the German translation.
Smith's actions have ensured that this guy will never turn up in the UK where, I should think, we'd have all ignored him completely, in the unlikely event any of us had actually noticed he was here.
On the other hand, she has also ensured that we have all now heard of him and gone and read what he has to say on the web. How many thousands or millions more people have now been exposed to his ideas?
Can't see what effect exposure to his ideas has, though. So we know the name of one more f****ing moron in the world; big deal. Is there really anyone out there who doesn't know some people don't like gays muslims and/or immigrants? Or who can't manage to locate these opinions on the web?
they feed on the apparence of conflict, fear, uncertainty and doubt, to add momentum to their cause.
...and if you buy the DVD or make a 1-900 donation, he can smoke even more right-wing crack. or pay the drones to do stuff.
Jacqui, the tard-mistress, seriously looks a bit retarded like GWB.
She is doing an equally dumbed-down FUD-fuelled job of using the media to bash in your forehead with the text-baton - much cheaper than a paddy wagon full of real policeman-weilding batons.
It is all just more psyops drivel - both sides.
Paris - cos US & UK aint worth visiting anymore.
Let's see- There's that puff chested war monger:
George W. Bush
There's his torturer in Chief:
Dick Cheney
There's the Minister of War:
Donald Rumsfeld
There's the gang of war crims that signed off on the torture:
Alberto Gonzales
Condileezza Rice
John Ashcroft
That's six, idn't it?
just thought have they just put his stage name on the naughty list? Coz who at "border control" (lol) is gonna recognise him anyway? Bet if he waited 6 months and used his real name he'd have no problem getting in.
Seriously though, it's just stupid, and it makes our country look stupid, it's the kind of loopy crap you'd expect from Iran.
*** One language? They've already ruined the one we gave them! (Ignoring the irony that English itself is based on the languages of Anglo Saxons, Vikings and Normans who could all be considered immigrants!) ***
The "Anglos" came from north Jutland (Denmark).
The "Saxons" came from the south Jutland (Denmark).
The Normands came from those (men from the North) Norwegians and Danes who had previously settled in France: and who had originally come from Jutland (Denmark).
Vikings? Well there were no viking people - this was just a generalised (often retroactively) naming exercise of referring to "Nordic" people outside of their "home" territory (as there is also no viking "country").
So what is "English"? Well you could say it is the result of danes talking to (and mating with) other danes (including some germans) and sometimes talking to (and mating with) celts etc. Later adding this to those danes who had in the meantime created themselves a home in france who talked to (and mated) other danes living in france and to (and with) the local population (who had failed miserably in learning latin and as a result created a bastard language nowadays called french). Then those "latinised danes" (normands) came to the UK and talked (and mated) some more with their "danish" (now english) brothers and sisters...
Immigrants - the whole lot......
This country is turning into a modern-day copy of the Eastern Block countries of the Cold War era -- a police state where everyone is a criminal and speech is heavily censored. It's extremely sad to come to despise your own country.
@Rex Alfie Lee: If he did read the Qu'ran he's a more patient man than me -- it's more dull than the bible and makes about as much sense. From the parts I could stay awake to read I'd say it's about as hateful as the bible too -- or is suggesting that burning in fires for eternity is adequate punishment for homosexuality and no-belief in Allah (for example) not hateful?
...but he should be let in. Proponents of ideas we dislike should not be silence, they should be challenged. For in our refusal to debate them and fight their hared with reason we engage in a form of self censorship that is far more dangerous than any idea he could bring to our shores.
Also, hi Jacqui - heard of the internet? You're pushing against the ocean.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
