On that point: Banning extremists is a great idea

In the liberal bastion of Portland it is easy to sometimes forget the influence conservative talk-radio hosts, such as Michael Savage, can have on America and the rest of the world.

The United Kingdom hasn’t forgotten though, and this week, the government, particularly the Home Office of the U.K., has banned Michael Savage from entering the country on a “name-and-shame” list that included extremists and internationally known bigots. The reasoning: his show and behavior are intended to provoke acts of serious violence on minorities, particularly homosexuals.

The question I have to ask is: Why didn’t we think of this first?

In many ways the U.S. government already bans those it sees as a threat to national security. Cat Stevens, anyone? But there is something else going on with the United Kingdom’s ban on an American radio-host that is enticing to consider.

With a ban of this nature, the government (and probably subsequently the networks and companies that make up the media) will have a greater control over hate speech. Because, let’s be honest, Michael Savage isn’t Bill O’Reilly.

Savage is one of the most notorious hate-mongers in the United States. O’Reilly may be offensive and rhetorically inept, but Savage uses his celebrity, which is quite large, to urge citizens to commit harm to those that he deems less than human. He uses inciting and fighting words.

Savage believes, “The gay and lesbian mafia wants our children. If it can win their souls and their minds, it knows their bodies will follow. Of course, it wants to homosexualize the whole country, not just the children.

This is all part of the war that is going on. Maybe you don’t want to face up to it, but it’s a very real war. It’s being inflicted on the American people by the radical gay lobby, which is now everywhere.” Those are not light words, so they shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Detractors of the ban basically have three arguments. First, that there is a slippery slope, where is the line drawn for who is named and shamed? A valid question, but the clear line is currently, and should remain, those that have the celebrity. This includes Savage and Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, who is also on the list, to encourage and incite people to acts of violence against another group of people, which these people regularly do.

Second, that it will have a chilling effect on controversial topics, basically a freedom of speech argument. What Savage is doing, saying things such as the Muslims in America “need deportation,” is the freedom of speech equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. The potential for harm—in this case enacting violence—is great. And the government has a right, an obligation, to protect its citizens. 

The third argument is that banning these people from entering countries makes them bigger celebrities, proliferating their message of hate further, when it would be better to just ignore them. Again, a valid point, but worrying about the celebrity impact of Savage is a little too late. He is as big as they come in the media world.

Making his voice louder is almost impossible. Banning them because of their predilection to fostering hate speech makes it clear that they are not to be trusted, not with our ears or mind.

Now, there are few people in the media world that are as fallacious and unacceptably provoking as Savage. This is a good thing. But the backlash of putting Savage on the list has been great.

How strange that while for most Americans it is perfectly acceptable for the United Kingdom to place the Muslims that have been added for inciting or justifying uses of terrorism on the list, but there is an outcry when Christian or white people involved in terrorist activities and rhetoric, such as Savage, Phelps and Stephen Donald Black, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, are also added to the list. 

For the most part, what these men are doing is just terrorism of a different kind.