October 4, 2007
Michael Savage Gets Official Frowny Face From SF Supes
With Ed Jew out of the picture for now, the SF Board of Supes wasted little time in unanimously approving a resolution tsk-tsking The Savage Nation host Michael Savage for his "[l]et them fast until they starve to death; then that solves the problem" (it sure helps us remain in control!) comment he made about students fasting in regard to an immigration reform bill last July.
This kind of civic condemnation feeds the Savage martyr status, yet gives the illusion that City Hall appears like one big bed of unified warm fuzzies -- a lose-lose for everyone, really. Kudos.
Image credit: Info Wars
| Advertisement: SFist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
This is, like, 3 days old.
But, nonetheless, it is still news. And disgusting, repulsive, unconstitutional, unpatriotic news. I love San Francisco, but, hello, this is still America; and in America we are allowed to say whatever the God damn hell we want to. If Ed Jew was ever- ever- good for one thing in my personal opinion, it was his 'No' vote on this resolution the first time around.
So long Constitution. It was nice knowing you...
Jess: I don't think you understand A) what this resolution does (nothing) and B) how the first amendment works.
If you seriously think that a non-binding resolution by the Board stating their opinion on Savage is some kind of assault on the Constitution, then please take an introductory Civics class.
I have taken more than just an introductory civics class, thank you, and I understand that a) resolutions have no legal power, and b) it's arguable that this doesn't interfere with the first amendment. My personal disapproval is towards the fact that this kind of legislature was sitting in front of 11 elected officials, and stated to condemn someone for their language. I'm glad that the supervisors have enough of a soul to find his words offense- I do too. In fact, anybody would. But as elected officials, it is not their position to speak that opinion. I don't care if they want to go out on their own time and bash this guy for whatever he said, but not if it's in the form of a piece of legislature. They're the governing legislative body of this city, and they need to respect the fact that even though what he's saying isn't something they don't agree with, he (Michael Savage) has every right to say it.
I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
I'm sorry, I meant to say legislation, not legislature.
Ugh, another typo, I meant to say "... even though what he's saying isn't something they agree with..."
It's early, so throw me a bone...
First of all, it's not like this is anything uncommon. Our national Congress passes resolutions like this all the time, most recently when the one regarding the sense of the Senate with respect to Iran, or condemning Moveon.org. If you think that it's a waste of time to pass resolutions like this, that's one thing, but interpreting them as having any significance beyond making a statement is silly.
Second, there is no debate as to whether this infringes on the 1st amendment. As you'll recall, it reads that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. This resolution is not a law and has no effect whatsoever on Savage's freedom to say whatever stupid garbage he wants. Conversely, there is no law saying that legislative bodies can't pass non-binding resolutions expressing their opinions. This is nothing even remotely close to legislation that prohibits free speech, nor does it in any way indicate that they don't respect his right to say it.
i agree with pancake breakfast (both the poster and the meal!).
michael savage has every right to say nasty things about san francisco.
the board of supes has every right to say we don't like it.
#7 said - "i agree with pancake breakfast (both the poster and the meal!). michael savage has every right to say nasty things about san francisco. the board of supes has every right to say we don't like it."
And this is precisely the problem... when the Board adopts a resolution it becomes the official opinion of the City. The supes as far as I'm concerned do NOT have a right to say "we" don't like it... unless I am wrong in the assumption that living here for 20 years qualifies me to be part of that "we"... because "I" do not agree with it at all. But what does my opinion count when "we" have decided - without a popular vote - that this is "our" position?
I don't care for Savage, but I (and I think most people) would never put a curb on free speech into writing... even if it is ultimately meaningless.
I've got to go with davey k and Jess Drake on this one (although I, too, love a pancake breakfast). Although this does not specifically go against the letter of the constitution, it certainly goes against the spirit of it. Since when is it the job of government to form an official opinion against someone's expression of free speech? Even if every pothole in this city has been filled (which, obviously, hasn't happened). Let the marketplace dictate what happens to Michael Savage. Unfortunately for the Supes, they'd find that he has a lot of fans and supporters here (and just for the record, I'm not either of those either).
I agree with the above commentators. There are times where I do agree with Michael Savage, so when the Board is saying "We (the body) agree with the resolution" they are simultaneously saying "therefore, all of San Francisco does now." I do not agree with the resolution. I find this whole act very oppressive, the more I think about it.
And, naturally, I'm aware Congress does this often. What makes you think I agree when they do it? The circumstances won't change my mind- when it's an opinion, it's an opinion. Let it be your own, and keep it that way.
Look, I don't want to belabor the point, but here's the text of the resolution:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/materials/071185.pdf
It says pretty explicitly that this is the sense of the Board, and not of the population of the city at large.
"But what does my opinion count when "we" have decided - without a popular vote - that this is "our" position?"
Do you have this complaint about everything the Supervisors vote on? This is how representative democracy works. We elect them to vote for us. If we don't like how they vote, we elect new supes.
To respond to the other points, I fail to see how this is in any way "oppressive," as it does nothing to abridge Michael Savage's freedom of speech in any respect. Nor does it interfere with the market in any way-- last I checked, Michael Savage was still on the radio and people are still listening to him, and will continue to listen to him in spite of this resolution.
Again: if you think this is a waste of the Board's time, and that similar national resolutions are a waste of Congress's time, then you might have a point. But please don't pretend this has anything to do with the first amendment or freedom of speech, because it's a completely specious argument and there is exactly zero evidence to support your point.
Why does anyone listen to Savage anyway? He looks like a scary midget. I have no idea what he sounds like and I never will.
Does he have oxy parties with Rush?
Thank you for pointing out the official resolution's text, pancake, but everything you've said in your last post is not news to me. I know, and I hope I don't have to say this again, that resolutions do nothing legal- at all! I know! And you're absolutely right, there probably isn't evidence proving whatever point you think I'm trying to make, because it's not a point, it's an opinion. It's a feeling I get when I think of this whole situation.
So please stop making it sound like I'm some uneducated tart who thinks she knows a thing or two about government. I know plenty about government to rightfully own the opinions I've expressed in above comments.