Talk Radio Host Accuses Critic Of Copyright Infringement... And Racketeering?

from the for-a-bit-of-criticsm? dept

Radio talk show host Michael Savage apparently isn't as open to accepting criticism as he is in dishing it out. He's suing the Council on American-Islamic Relations for copyright infringement, because CAIR used clips from Savage's show to respond to, and criticize, his statements. That's a perfectly reasonable fair use of copyrighted content. It seems clear that this is merely an attempt to bully and silence a critic. To add even more weight to that claim, Savage isn't just claiming copyright infringement, but racketeering. The reasoning behind the racketeering charge isn't entirely clear (and from the EFF's response about the problems with Savage's filings, it sounds like the reasoning isn't clear to even those who made the racketeering claim), but the idea that posting some radio clips and criticizing them could be seen as racketeering seems pretty ridiculous.

Filed Under: cair, copyright, criticism, michael savage, racketeering


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, 4 Feb 2008 @ 7:43am

    Savage, CAIR and free speech

    It should be clear to all that Savage's primary goal is money, that his path to that goal is via ratings, and the reason that's his path is that "ratings" == "commercial support". Fairness, accuracy, free speech, reason, respect, common decency have nothing to do with it -- none of those things put money in his pocket. This posturing over copyright is simply more of the same.

    As to CAIR, let me point out that sufficiently diligent investigation could no doubt uncover "links" between everyone posting in this thread and The Bad Guys. As in "once lived across the street from someone who sold a car that later was purchased by Timothy McVeigh" or "belonged to the same Saturday softball team as the person who taught the sophomore economics class that covered a theory later adopted by the Unabomber" or similarly tenuous connections. None of these have any real value, of course, but in a climate of fear-mongering it's often presumed that they do. If there is any real evidence demonstrating organizational involvement in real crimes, then the path is clear: produce that evidence, seek an indictment, and prepare to try the case in open court. (That's how we do things here.) And note that rumors, innuendo, propaganda, hearsay, suspicion, etc. are generally not considered admissible evidence -- for very good reason.

    And as to free speech, as others have pointed out, that includes hateful speech, stupid speech, bigoted speech, incoherent speech, and everything else. That's the deal. Anyone who can't handle that really needs to spend some quality time reading Thomas Paine -- they have failed to grasp the full meaning of the First Amendment. And yes, sometimes it's hard, especially when faced with completely vicious assholes like the godhatesfags types. But that's the deal. If you don't like the deal, then seek the repeal/modification of the First Amendment. That's also how we do things here -- you know, the rule of law and all that.


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.