US Shock Jock Demands apology

[DodgyAgent]

At first I was thinking "aw boo hoo tough guy right wing shock jock got all upset ahhh didums" - but then I realised that he's fallen foul of the last in a long line of useless Home Secretaries - and whatever you may think of his views, he shouldn't be found guilty at the sole behest of some manky politician.


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/vid...=searchresults

What is wrong in arguing that the Koran is a book of hate? No one would blink an eyelid if someone argued that the bible is likewise.

[eliquant]

Yet another mistake by our great Labour leaders who do not have the foresight to see what ramifications their actions will take.

"Shock Jock" Savage in the u.s. as the video correctly states is highly offensive but he has not commited an offense, he now has the right to initiate a liable case against the British government (which I reckon he will do)
which could net him up to £200,000, yet more tax payers money down the toilet potentially.

All this for placing him on a banned list full of Russian Skin Head killers (killed 20 both of them, not exactly in the same league and what ever happened to freedom of speech.

I think even hate speech as much as I totally loath it should be allowed in this country provided it DOES NOT BREAK THE LAW.

[The Lone Gunman]

I agree.
This guy is guilty of asking the hard questions, possibly playing devils advocate.
He is probably only doing it for the notoriety but he may actually be a seaker after the truth.
There has been a reasonable tradition of this in the UK too. James Whale springs to mind.

He and others are accused of being likely to incite racial hatred and/or violence. It seems to me that this phrase and any subsequent action have been turned around in recent years.
It used to mean that the speaker actualy said people should rise up against <insert target here> or should drive out <target again>.
Today it seems to mean that if you say something others may disagree with and those others are likely to riot it is your fault, even if what you say is true.

It (and other legislation) also seems to be applied unevenly

[Peoplesoft bloke]

At first I was thinking "aw boo hoo tough guy right wing shock jock got all upset ahhh didums" - but then I realised that he's fallen foul of the last in a long line of useless Home Secretaries - and whatever you may think of his views, he shouldn't be found guilty at the sole behest of some manky politician.


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/vid...=searchresults