Savage VS CAIR - Your Thoughts

[mattskramer]

I’m surprised that no one has posted anything concerning this court case. Perhaps comments have been posted that I have not found. Anyway, here is the gist of the issue:

Should people be allowed to quote other people / commentators (by typing or audio recording) (supposedly in context or out of context) and then encourage others, based on evaluation of such comments, to boycott said commentator. Here are relevant links for you to consider while you formulate your opinion:

The website in question with the audio in question:

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?mid1=777&&ArticleID=23608&&name=n&&currPage=3

The basic outline of the suit:

http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html

In my opinion what CIAR did falls under Fair Use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.

(I did not get Wikipedia’s permission to use its definition for Fair Use. I sure hope that it does not use me.)

Shouldn’t people be allowed to take quotes from other people / comentators and criticize such commentators. Shouldn’t they also be free to ask that other people boycott such people. It is hard for me to believe that every sentence that someone utters is actually so copywrited automatically and is saved from being excerpted and criticized.

Anyway, please give your perspective and answer the question: Should Savage win?

 

[hjmick]

Context is everything.

That being said, I don't think Savage will or should win. He is a public figure. He says controversial things. If he never expected that the things he says wouldn't be used against him at some point by someone, he's a fool. I understand why he has decided to sue, no one likes to be quoted out of context, just ask any politician. For that matter, ask any USMB member.

 

[Shogun]

isn't this exactly what the catholic league is doing with the movie The Last Compass? isn't this what happened to Don Imus? Mike Richards? Mel Gibson? The Davinci Code? the "old media newspaper wars" in NY and Washington?

I think Mike overreacted, per his schtick, and will lose his case. His hatred of muslim organizations is clearly muting his logic.

 

[AllieBaba]

I’m surprised that no one has posted anything concerning this court case. Perhaps comments have been posted that I have not found. Anyway, here is the gist of the issue:

Should people be allowed to quote other people / commentators (by typing or audio recording) (supposedly in context or out of context) and then encourage others, based on evaluation of such comments, to boycott said commentator. Here are relevant links for you to consider while you formulate your opinion:

The website in question with the audio in question:

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?mid1=777&&ArticleID=23608&&name=n&&currPage=3

The basic outline of the suit:

http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html

In my opinion what CIAR did falls under Fair Use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.

(I did not get Wikipedia’s permission to use its definition for Fair Use. I sure hope that it does not use me.)

Shouldn’t people be allowed to take quotes from other people / comentators and criticize such commentators. Shouldn’t they also be free to ask that other people boycott such people. It is hard for me to believe that every sentence that someone utters is actually so copywrited automatically and is saved from being excerpted and criticized.

Anyway, please give your perspective and answer the question: Should Savage win?

No. This is one of the hazards of freedom of speech, and to mess with it is to tamper with that.

I'm forced to listen to Savage because I live in a really rural area, do lots of traveling in a car and pretty much the only radio I can pick up consistently seems to run him about 23 out of 24 hours of the day. I think he's a nutcase. Entertaining, and possibly quite a nice guy...but some of the stuff he says is just off the wall. Some of it is right on, though. So, like most humans, he has his quirks (sheesh, I hope I never have to listen to him go off about cocoa and kids ever again. He seems to think cocoa is the number one cause of most emotional problems in children.)

He's a radio talk show host who prides himself on saying inflammatory, outrageous things, often about specific people. He says horrible things about Rush, Bush and others...and yet he's all hurt and shocked that they don't rush to his defense.

And what is even more appalling is he's set up a FUND for his stupid attorney's fees. He goes out and gets the most expensive attorney money can buy, tells everyone he's going to change the world when he wins this case..then puts the pinch on his listeners.

If only I could find another channel out here in the sticks.

 

[AllieBaba]

isn't this exactly what the catholic league is doing with the movie The Last Compass? isn't this what happened to Don Imus? Mike Richards? Mel Gibson? The Davinci Code? the "old media newspaper wars" in NY and Washington?

I think Mike overreacted, per his schtick, and will lose his case. His hatred of muslim organizations is clearly muting his logic.

And while it's a good cause to expose fascists, get some balls for crying out loud. It's like he can dish it out, but he can't take it.

 

[Shogun]

I just want to clarify... I listen to Savage too right before Boortz because he is lots of entertainment. i respect his passion even if he says goofy things in order to get paid.. He's like the Andrew Dice Clay of conservative radio. I don't think anyone should keep savage from saying the things that he does. I think he has a first amendment right to say what he wants to say. However, I don't think that the bill of rights protects an individual from the repercussions of their free speach. David Duke could come up with the cure for cancer and America wold still see him as a racist asshole based on his own words (even if his logic is spot on when equating groups that support white rights with the NAACP). yes, let mike say what he wants to say. Everyone else has the right to make a judgment about his expression. This is why I brought up the Last Compass. Is the Catholic League liable for loss in ticket sales because they organized a boycott reflecting the fact of the authors own work? no. Boycotts are as American as Unions. But, by all means, let Dr. Savage speak.

 

[Shogun]

And while it's a good cause to expose fascists, get some balls for crying out loud. It's like he can dish it out, but he can't take it.

Thats true. It seems that a good portion of talk radio is based on this very same process of reporting so that an audience can decide to participate in voting dem or not. Again, I think he overreacted and I think he knows it. I think he wanted to tag Cair with something and thought he would be the hero of the day.

I rememebr last summer when Savage thought that some fed politican threatened him.. I forget what the actual dialog was.. It was a Roll the eyes moment, lemme tellya.. in fact, for some reason i want to say it was from a republican too.

 

[Annie]

I dislike Michael Savage, I think he's way over the top and often nasty. With that said, I don't know he'll lose, if CAIR used more than 7 minutes of his copy righted material. The courts will rule.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I hope c.a.i.r. loses, i dont need any race or religious (politically correct) protected by the media, group that tells me what i can and cant think, and telling me what is and isnt racist.

clean up your own shit with radical islam c.a.i.r. before you starting telling christians and jews how to act.

 

[mattskramer]

I hope c.a.i.r. loses, i dont need any race or religious (politically correct) protected by the media, group that tells me what i can and cant think, and telling me what is and isnt racist.

clean up your own shit with radical islam c.a.i.r. before you starting telling christians and jews how to act.

I can tell you to go jump in the lake. I can say that you are a racist. You do not have to jump in the lake just because I say so. Also, just because I call you a racist does not mean that you are a racist.

People have a right to free speech. People do not have a right to be listened to or believed. This is a free speech issue for CAIR. I think that they should win and I hope that they do win.

 

[Shogun]

I hope c.a.i.r. loses, i dont need any race or religious (politically correct) protected by the media, group that tells me what i can and cant think, and telling me what is and isnt racist.

clean up your own shit with radical islam c.a.i.r. before you starting telling christians and jews how to act.

your post is ironic as hell on so many levels.

 

[midcan5]

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute, suppose Savage's words cause innocent people to suffer is that Ok? For instance what information, what background of ideas caused Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph to kill innocent people?

How do you deal with the evil below?

"Julius Streicher was one of Hitler's earliest comrades during the Nazi rise to power in the 1920's and 1930's. Streicher helped Hitler gain a foothold in Nuremberg, which helped the Nazi regime consolidate its hold on Germany. Streicher's main role, however, was as a sort of common man's Joseph Goebbels. Streicher was a teacher by trade, and a fairly effective one at that. He had the rare ability to motivate his students by instilling his enthusiasm for any subject into the minds of his pupils. Streicher used this ability later in his duties for the Nazi party. Streicher published the notorious anti-Jewish newspaper Der Sturmer, which pumped out the most strident and hateful propaganda on the "Jewish Problem" for over twenty years. Bytwerk examines how effective Der Sturmer was on the common German, and how the newspaper went about reducing Jews to the status of non-humans. When this status was reached, the result led to the concentration camps and mass murder."

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Julius-Streicher-Notorious-Anti-Semitic-Newspaper/dp/0815411561[/ame]

 

[AllieBaba]

There are no words on earth that can "make" anybody kill anybody else. The blame for that belongs on the shoulders of the perps themselves, and none other.

If somebody is inciting people to violence and unlawful behavior, that's a different circumstance.

 

[mattskramer]

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute, suppose Savage's words cause innocent people to suffer is that Ok? For instance what information, what background of ideas caused Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph to kill innocent people?

How do you deal with the evil below?

"Julius Streicher was one of Hitler's earliest comrades during the Nazi rise to power in the 1920's and 1930's. Streicher helped Hitler gain a foothold in Nuremberg, which helped the Nazi regime consolidate its hold on Germany. Streicher's main role, however, was as a sort of common man's Joseph Goebbels. Streicher was a teacher by trade, and a fairly effective one at that. He had the rare ability to motivate his students by instilling his enthusiasm for any subject into the minds of his pupils. Streicher used this ability later in his duties for the Nazi party. Streicher published the notorious anti-Jewish newspaper Der Sturmer, which pumped out the most strident and hateful propaganda on the "Jewish Problem" for over twenty years. Bytwerk examines how effective Der Sturmer was on the common German, and how the newspaper went about reducing Jews to the status of non-humans. When this status was reached, the result led to the concentration camps and mass murder."

http://www.amazon.com/Julius-Streicher-Notorious-Anti-Semitic-Newspaper/dp/0815411561&tag=ff0d01-20

I have heard people say that pornographic magazines should be banned because some people have raped and killed women after collecting such stuff.

http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0332_Ted_Bundy.html

Bundy's last words of confession and warning about pornography are an echo of statistics, research, and reports conducted within the last decade about the link between pornography and sexually violent crime. Unfortunately, many of the warnings in those reports still have not been heeded, and pornography has been taken for granted or considered a necessary evil.

No. I think that, ultimately, people should be held accountable for their own actions. Words and pictures are inanimate objects. In and of themselves, they can’t force you to do anything.

 

[AllieBaba]

Pornography is a sticky subject because of the exploitation of the women and children who work in the industry.

It's not about freedom of speech in the case of porno, or the affect it has on readers.... it's about nefarious workplace activities. And the fact that people are preyed upon within the industry itself.

 

[mattskramer]

Pornography is a sticky subject because of the exploitation of the women and children who work in the industry.

It's not about freedom of speech in the case of porno, or the affect it has on readers.... it's about nefarious workplace activities. And the fact that people are preyed upon within the industry itself.

Oh well. I guess that you and I disagree in this area. People have choices in the ways that they try to make money. Do employers and bosses prey on people in other lines of work? Yes. Managers push you to do more with less. If you are a customer service representative taking calls from angry customers, you are pushed to take more calls. If you are a widget maker on an assembly line you have to work faster and more skillfully and accept less in compensation then the other would-be employee or you will be replaced. Pornography business, assembly line widget-making business, call center business – people prostitute themselves for the all-mighty-dollar no matter what the trade – and bosses are all to eager to eat up people who are willing to do more for less.

 

[Eightball]

Don't always agree with Michaels approach, but on this one, I say, "Go Mike". Hammer CAIR hard.

 

[Dr Grump]

Don't always agree with Michaels approach, but on this one, I say, "Go Mike". Hammer CAIR hard.

Now there's a surprise!

 

[mattskramer]

Don't always agree with Michaels approach, but on this one, I say, "Go Mike". Hammer CAIR hard.

Why? Is it that you don’t like CAIR. I don’t particularly like either side (Savage or CAIR), but putting my emotions aside, I think that Savage is wrong. This does not constitute copyright infringement to the extent of being illegal. This amounts to CAIR applying “fair use”. Even if I loved Savage and hated CAIR, I would think that Savage is wrong and that CAIR is legally justified in what it did.

 

[pegwinn]

If only I could find another channel out here in the sticks.

Dude you have got to get SIRIUS about your listening habits.

I think he has a first amendment right to say what he wants to say. However, I don't think that the bill of rights protects an individual from the repercussions of their free speach.

Absolutely. See "Absence of Malice".

People have a right to free speech. People do not have a right to be listened to or believed. This is a free speech issue for CAIR. I think that they should win and I hope that they do win.

Your first two sentences above are spot on. Personally, I think CAIR needs to have a low level EMP in thier headquarters.

Pornography is a sticky subject because of the exploitation of the women and children who work in the industry.

If the women who are allegedly exploited are over 18 and not doing it under coercion then that is a personal decision. Kids of course are another matter. Don't mistake me please. IF a 22 year old Blondie is going at it in order to pay the bills, that is her right. If she is kept on the set and blackmailed for example to get busy... then the employer needs to be hammered.