SF City Officials' Attack on Michael Savage Fails

On August 7, Gerardo Sandoval, member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, proposed a resolution to condemn the nationally syndicated SF native Michael 'Savage' Weiner for comments he made. This was in response to his July 5 broadcast in which he spoke out against protesters on a hunger strike for looser immigration policies, saying that they should fast, "until they starve to death, then that solves the problem."

The Supervisor's proposed resolution angered Savage, causing him to threaten legal action against Sandoval. He vehemently asserted that the condemnation would be a violation of his free speech rights by the government of San Francisco. Michael Savage received strong support among conservatives who agreed with his stance against illegal immigration, and even some liberals who believed Sandoval threatened his freedom of speech.

Sandoval failed to get his resolution to pass, however. In a 9 - 1 vote for the condemnation, the sole veto came from Supervisor Ed Jew, grandson of a Chinese immigrant. Jew acknowledged Savage's right to free speech, regardless of their political differences by stating, "For the record, I do not agree with comments allegedly made by Mr. Savage, but the First Amendment gives him the right to make those comments." The battle between Sandoval and the syndicated talker may be over for now, but it raises questions about how far the government should go in suppressing potentially incendiary comments and what recourse is available to those who feel their free speech has been violated.

My Analysis:

This is a major loss for Sandoval. His vote failed, but that will not be the worst of the political fallout. While he may still succeed in inciting a witch-hunt against Savage among the far-left in San Francisco, he would be doing so by attacking free speech itself. Although everyone may not agree with what Savage said, I strongly believe that most people would stand by his right to say it. His comments were controversial, but agreeable speech isn't what Americans need to defend.

In a time where many of our civil liberties are being slowly eroded, it doesn't make sense to let freedom of speech be squelched by the government. Should anything like this ever happen again, I would hope that more than one person in power defends free speech against a partisan attack. This issue, along with much bigger ones (The Fairness Doctrine, The Patriot Act, etc.) should be a wake up call to Americans to defend their civil liberties by standing up for those whose rights are being threatened.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

-Martin Niemöller

Resources:

http://www.examiner.com/a-872440~S_F__supes_extend_helping_hand_to_immigrants.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/9/213250.shtml

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57096

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

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57170