Savage vs. CAIR
Mark Steyn’s not alone. Stateside, Cinnamon Stillwell has a comprehensive overview of radio talker Michael Savage’s battle with CAIR–placing it in the important context of the jihad apologist group’s long war on many other conservative critics, scholars, and investigative journalists who have dared to raise their voices against the speech-stifling organization.
Stillwell concludes:
Time will tell whether or not the rest of Savage’s advertisers fall prey to CAIR’s intimidation tactics, but something tells me his aggressive lawsuit will have an impact. Whatever happens, it’s high time that CAIR’s mantle of respectability be put to the test. The war on terrorism has many fronts, the bulk of them ideological in nature. Giving up our rights to free speech in order to avoid causing offense would be a clear victory for America’s enemies. The question is, is CAIR among them?
You know the answer.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: CAIR
JustOneMinute
» Susan Rice To The United Nations
Belmont Club
» Good enoughGateway Pundit
» Change... Obama Continues Boycott of FOX NewsBelmont Club
» Crusader RabbitRight Wing Nut House
» THE INCREDIBLY STUPID THOUGHTS OF DEEPAK CHOPRANewsBusters.org
» MSM Ignore India's Strict Gun Control LawsWeekly Standard
» Canada Plans to Save the Big 3, TooTigerHawk
» Blame America firstDavid Frum
» Will the Harper government collapse?
I do not like Mr Savage, but he is 100% right here. I hope he kicks their butt and publicizes all he learns in the discovery phase on his show. And I will purchase from any advertiser.
Explain to me the logic of a group, like CAIR, that repeatedly sues others on the grounds of religious discrimination, defamation and intolerance, but then drops their suit during the discovery process because they don’t want the public to know who they or their supporters really are?
Baffling.
Whether you like Savage or not is NOT the issue. This is a fundamental freedom of speech matter which the meat Popsicles at CAIR would like to eliminate in their quest for US Sharia-friendly media…
Not logic…arrogance.
The same arrogance that will be their demise. They really do not understand the Americans. Neither do the Dems.
Except for those with warped minds, when has CAIR ever had a mantle of respectability?
I would like to know of any of Savage’s advertisers who pull their business, so that I can boycott them. Why would any business pull their advertising because of whining Muslims?
This is one time I’m pulling for the personal injury lawyers.
The ENTIRE reason for having a right that protects free speech is to protect speech we don’t like! If everyone agreed with everyone else, we wouldn’t need to protect free speech.
Why is it that the conservatives understand this and the liberals, that claim to stand for civil rights, don’t?
Sorry, rhetorical question.
Remember the Holyland trial? It turns out that a Hamas-sympathizing juror sabotaged the biggest terror-funding case in U.S. history by bullying jurors who favored convictions.
The jury was intimidated by one pro muslim juror who admitted to lying on the jury application so that he could get on. For whatever reason this has been ignored by the MSM, drudge, and MM (I emailed a tip). See the article here:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=282787604455103
I saw a list of companies that pulled their ads in response to CAIR’s complaints but I can’t seem to find it right now. I do know that Citrix Systems did pull out.
I emailed my complaint to them a few weeks ago. No response whatsoever.
Mr. Savage is a little too harsh for my tastes, but he does have the right to free speech just as the right of the idiots on the left that spew nothing but hatred and intolerance. CAIR has shown they are a fifth column organization bent on the destruction of our culture and have been implicated in backing terrorist organizations.
The intimidation of his sponsors into dropping his show and their attempt at silencing his message no matter how revolting demonstrates their danger to our way of life. I will make it a point to boycott his weak kneed ex-sponsors to reward them for their cowardice to a very small but offense minority of this countries population that want to replace our laws with those of intolerant Islam.
And the ‘moderate(radical) muslims’ say?
SILENCE IS CONSENT!
Liberals don’t stand for civil rights; they just claim they do…for votes. Look at their results, not their speech. Michael Graham, though he lost his radio job, has done quite well in Boston. He stated it was an improvement. ALL of our rights are under attack in this country. It is the worse assault ever, that I know. They want to turn the 10 amendments into an “Animal Farm” type Bill of Rights.
#6 I totally agree with you.
ACTION speaks louder than talk-talk-talk!
it is my understanding that CAIR has been falsely claiming that several advertisers have stopped supporting Savage when in fact these advertisers do not normally advertise on talk radio programs. But then truth has never stopped CAIR in the past. They refer to the death of the young girl in Canada as being the result of domestic abuse, and won’t discuss the key issue which is the forced wearing of the hijab
You guys have this all right. It would be one thing if CAIR were suing Savage over his comments. That would be a direct attack on the First Amendment.
But Savage is suing them! Why? Because they are urging a boycott. Which is completely legal.
If Savage wins (he won’t), that will be a huge strike against the First Amendment. Imagine if the MMs (Michelle Malkin, Media Matters) had to take down clips from radio and television because CNN, FoxNews, Rush, whatever, felt those clips were taking their comments out of context.
I don’t like CAIR for obvious reasons. But they are not doing anything wrong by urging a boycott.
Did the Montgomery Transit Authority sue Martin Luther King for insisting that people not take the bus?
Did Miller sue this website for urging a boycott of their products?
No and no.
Savage’s lawsuit is a farce.
Ummm…Whhops! Start #15 with “you guys have this all wrong.”
I’ll have to dig around for the article, but the majority of radio stations that Savage is on aren’t overly impacted by the pull-out of ad sponsors for his program. Basically, they move the advertising to a different program and keep the revenue flowing. The radio stations realize that Savage’s listeners tend to stay with the station even after his program is complete.
And again, I’m no huge Savage fan, but really can we start using the same logic for getting Air America off the radio?
Because - in the arena of ideas - when conservative viewpoints (which have reasoned arguments supported by fact and history) meet up with most liberal arguments (based on feelings and moral relativism) the conservative viewpoints tend to win out.
I know they did with me.
So some liberals realize that if you can’t beat ‘em, work like hell to shut ‘em down and shut ‘em up.
The “I’m Offended” card is really a “Shut Up, I Don’t Like What You’re Saying” card.
OK, have to respond to this.
Savage is suing them for using his soundbites on their website for soliciting donations. His claim is that it’s copyright infrigement to generate revenue.
Savage is not suing them regarding the boycott. As I understand it, he is suing them for using an extended recorded portion of his radio show as part of a fund-raising vehicle.
I’ve reread my pocket Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights. Still haven’t found the right not to be offended.
Timbudd, correct.
So, do you think Michelle Malkin should be sued if she posts a clip from Air America or CNN? After all, this site generates revenues. I would say that’s fair use.
So, Savage is actually trying to weaken the First Amendment.
I know we’re dealing with CAIR and the immediate reaction is to disagree with them, but what Savage is doing will weaken the First Amendment.
Rusty - only a little problem with your logic. At issue is when is a “quote” more than a quote. It’s not a free speech argument. It’s an intellectual property argument.
From NYT: “At least two of his major sponsors — Citrix, which sells remote access to computers, and Trusted ID, which provides protection against identity theft — have pulled their spots.”
Correct. Which is why there are fair use protections for groups like CAIR and people like MM.
I was under the impression that there was a four minute excerpt from the radio show. Not the entire show. Just four minutes. That seems fair to me.
I have to agree with Rusty here. Savage’s suit is bad strategy in a good fight.
i do not know exactly what the history of events are surrounding savage and the cair group. it doesn’t matter to me, i just know if cair is on one side, i am on the other, period.
whether i use their product or not, i am going to write these companies and advise them that i work in the security information systems field and i on occasion do have power to influence purchase. their’s will not get my influence, ever again. citrix is used by the company i work for and this company has the largest ‘citrix’ farm in the world. i may research their competitor and begin to ‘influence’ a purchase of something else in the future.
my guess is that cair did not just go after theset two companies. that these are just the two they were successful in convincing. my suggestion is to let these companies know just what your opinion is on them backing this terrorist group called cair. maybe even send them information on the cair as an unindicted co-conspirator of the moslem brotherhood.
Savages lawsuit has no merit. Nevertheless he is out to expose CAIR for the sharia/terrorist enabling organization it is. Someone should. And since CAIR is primarily a Saudi operation, we cannot depend on the Bush administration.
Actually they do. They figured out how to manipulate the American liberal press to push their agenda.
Hopefully once their money roots are exposed they will lose their influence; I doubt it. There are still people who think Julis Rosenberg was innocent even though the Venona papers proved he was a Soviet spy.
I am just curious how CAIR selects their targets. Wasn’t their first victim a talk show host in CA? Emboldened by their success there, and being granted all sorts of legitimatcy by other organizations, they now use the tactics pioneered and perfected by the Rainbow Coalition, to basically blackmail corporations. What we need is more CEO’s with cojones and fewer getting bonuses for showing smaller loss in profits then their predecessors.
Rusty #15 said:
Sorry, Rusty, but you’re mistaken on this one. Read his lawsuit. It is based in copyright & trademark laws, misuse of Michael’s proprietary interests to further their own agenda, etc.
Under the law, it is impermissable to appropriate another’s registered trademark/copyright/patent without first obtaining permission, and it is a second actionable offense to misuse it in a way that harm’s the trademark owner. CAIR is not only accessing Savage’s proprietary material without having first obtained permission; CAIR is also editing his comments in a way that misstates them, places them clearly out of context, and using those misstatements in their own money-raising efforts.
It is very likely that Savage will win his lawsuit, particularly with Dan Horowitz representing him.
Wade, you consider The New York Times a reliable source?
So how is this any different from Michelle or HA posting clips from radio broadcasts or TV shows?
Not a big Savage fan (although, living in the throws of the SF Bay Area…I understand his frustration) - but I am 100% behind the guy.
CAIR is toxic.
Another one of those ‘get over it’ moments
Mr. Savage has a tenancy to go over the top at times even if I agree with his ideas, but remember he has been saying for yrs “Borders Language Culture”
#33 Mookie said:
Perhaps if Michelle or HA edited such radio broadcasts or TV shows in a way that misstated them or placed them clearly out of context, those sources might have a case. But I don’t believe Michelle does that.
Michael Savage has a legal background. If he’s suing you can bet he has a sound basis. By the way for those of you who think that Michael is too harsh, I would say that you’re too sensitive (ie. girley men)
Truth is truth and concerning the enemies of freedom, a wakeup call needs to be clear and not sugar-coated.
Also, Michael, we miss you in Knoxville since Hannity stole your spot.
CAIR didn’t either. The things Savage said were pretty toxic. He clearly was not taken out of context.
He also has a radio show that is earning oodles of publicity. And a lot of conservatives are eating it up. That’s the only way that this lawsuit can be interpreted as a success.
I cannot recall MM utilizing comments from others to elicit monies for fund raising for her own purposes, such as CAIR is doing.
If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.
My trolldar is has picked up two contacts
Fire at will…
GSP
Dhimi or Freedom-Your Choice!
I read this lawsuit when it was posted on Drudge, and the most specific thing I recall is not just that CAIR was using his comments out of context and edited to mis-state them, but that they were doing this for the express purpose of raising money. I may not be a lwyer, but that doesn’t pass the smell test.
As to his strategy, even if he loses, it is good strategy so CAIR will be legally fully exposed.
So if CAIR presented Savage’s quotes exactly as he said them, with no editing, would Savage not have a case? And does anyone know how this works under Fair Use or DRM?
I’m thinking back to Michelle’s battle with Universal over Akon. Michelle and HA put up the video showing how vulgar and disgusting Akon is, using his lyrics and concert footage as examples. Universal got the video yanked from YouTube and Michelle fought back.
“It is impermissible and irresponsible for copyright holders to use the DMCA as a pretext to squelch criticism,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. “Ms. Malkin had every right under copyright law to criticize UMG and Akon, and to use footage of Akon to emphasize her point. Criticism and commentary are not only the core of fair use, but vital to our traditions of free speech.”
Couldn’t the same be said for CAIR in this case? Trust me, I’m not defending them. I find both CAIR and Savage reprehensible. What concerns me is the potential precedence that could be set by a lawsuit like this. What would happen to a website like Newsbusters?
All you guys are missing a second point in Mikes lawsuit.He is pushing the gov to remove the tax exempt status.
Right but that’s a separate issue from the copyright question.
#43 Mookie said:
You raise a good point Mookie, and I thought about that Michelle/Universal incident as well. Perhaps Michelle could drop her two cents if she sees this.
Something tells me the difference lies somewhere between: directly quoting another source’s copyrighted material for editorializing purposes, and hand-picking copyrighted material to create a defaming impression for purposes of opposition fundraising.
#39 Rusty said:
Oh. Then I guess if the situation is as clear cut as you portray, Savage has no case. Thanks for clearing this up.
I found this on the Savage Nation. It’s a list of companies CAIR is pressuring.
I’ve already contacted a few of them. CAIR can boycott. So can we.
“According to a Dec. 3 CAIR press release, a growing list of companies, including AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JC Penney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart, and AT&T, have joined the boycott.”
Just find the company website and contact them with your displeasure.
Follow Laura Ingraham’s lead and give “Power to the People.
Nuff said.
To BrianNY and Rusty:
I have never heard Michael Savage say anything defamatory about Islam or Muslims. I listen to him every single night. What CAIR did is edit his comments, present them out of context, in order to raise money for itself and quash Savage’s income. Perhaps this is what you heard, Rusty: the edited version.
One entity may not unjustly enrich itself by misappropriating copyrighted material of another entity. Michelle does not do that. She doesn’t say, “See how awful this is? Send me money so I can fight the good fight and right this wrong!”.
That’s what CAIR did with with Savage’s stuff.
I’m oversimplifying it, but this is the essence of this fight.
They could CAIR less.
Rusty this is for you Savage has said repeatedly that if he is taken off the air which is CAIR’s goal and then who or what newscaster would be next? The long term goal for these muslims is to silence all opposition and after they get Savage off then they would go after someone that you make like and down the road we would be living in the midst of islam law.
If that’s the case, then Newsbusters and the Media Research Council will have a big problem on their hands.
Newsbusters/MRC
Not quite OT -
The President of Citrix is a Frat brother to Ron Paul!
See here and here
Am checking to see why Lambda Chi Alpha calls their publication “Cross and Crescent”
Interesting, no?
Hi, Mookie:
The issue is not the use of the material; it’s the misappropriation of it, mischaracterization of it for unjust gain, etc.
Do these two agencies you’ve mentioned do that?
That’s not a question I can really answer because it’s not my material that’s being used. But I think that if Savage were to win his lawsuit, any of the people whose material is used on Newsbusters or MRC could say that their reports were intentionally taken out of context to further NB/MRC’s agenda against what they perceive as a liberal bias in the media. Any reporter could say that such a portrayal as an unbiased journalist by NB/MRC has a negative impact on potential future earnings. It’s a really slippery slope and one that I think could have some very frightening unintentional consequences.
As far as CAIR’s tax exempt status, that should have been yanked a long time ago.
I’m sorry, I meant to say biased journalist, not unbiased.
Great to read your publicizing of Mike Savage’s lawsuit. While I don’t agree with him 100%, he sometimes makes crucial observations about politics that are avoided by most conservatives. I’m especially glad to see his situation is beginning to get some publicity in the conservative media, after a few weeks of almost no publicity.
Fair enough. The actual recordings of Savage’s broadcast will be heard in either contrast or comparison to how CAIR broadcast them, and the jury’s chips can fall where they may.
I do get your point about the slippery slope. If anything, this will be a wake-up call to bloggers and journalists to be very careful about how they report, and to CAIR and others who would edit those broadcasts in shady ways for their own gain. It will be good to restore integrity, if any was lacking.
That is not a problem on MM’s site, of course.
Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas!
Don’t believe CAIR’s website. They are claiming successes with companies who have never advertised with Savage just to give them greater credibility.
CAIR’s a bunch of liars who are commplicit with Muslim murderers and they deserve condemnation.
I listen to Savage on my way home from work and he’s had several people call who say they are muslim and want to donate for his cause. They say CAIR does not speak for them and they are behind him 100%.
Please go to michaelsavage.com and use PayPal to send him $5 - Fight Jihad & Stop Shria!!
I think that “Fair Use” for audio and video is something like 20 seconds and even then you’re at risk of being sued.
A few months ago Warner Brothers, through YouTube, sent me an email demanding that I remove two 2 minute clips of a movie I had posted there.
I like Savage and his over the top rants are needed, As congress ignores Americans regarding the border Savage …and Buchanon and Tancredo have every reason to go ballistic having seen the light long before anyone else…….we need to take our country back…..
It is time to ask Michael Savages advertisers if they really want the people who support CAIR to patronize their places of business in the first place. It might be the best thing for their usinesses to have CAIR boycotting them. At least if they and their members are not patronizing them, they don’t have to worry about one of them being inside wearing a suicide vest.
You know…because they are a peaceful religion..THE peaceful religion.
Oh, and don’t count of the ACLU to come to Savage’s aid. They are too tied up defending NAMBLA with their quest to have sex with all those smooth, young, hairless boys, and the Liberals who support them. That is far more important you know.
One need’nt be a fan of Michael Savage (I am) or of Mark Steyn or even politically conservative to understand the peril of giving CAIR or their Canadian stooges a defacto veto power over what can be written or said regarding militant Islam. I support both Savage and Steyn 100%.
#57 vickisoup said:
The fact that C.A.I.R has dropped lawsuits just before discovery phase before, and the way that C.A.I.R conducted the ‘Flying Imam’ fiasco, I’m not very impressed with their handling of legal matters. I guess we’ll just have to see how far Savage will push back.
I’m not a fan of Weiner Nation, as Mark Levin refers to the guy, but as a conservative talk-radio lover, I don’t ‘cair’ for the implications of this. That said, the islamonazis don’t seem to have been as successful as they claim, according to Brian Maloney. Also, speaking of Mark Levin, he actually offered some pretty sound legal advice to Savage recently on the air.
Savage is an entertainer, pure and simple. Sometimes I have my issues with him, just as anyone else. However, he should win this case and garner enough money to retire.
CAIR is not our friend, and it’s high time the Islamo-panderers (panderees?) figured it out.
Why would they? Free speech advocates should be siding with CAIR. No one has limited Savage’s ability to speak his mind. If Michelle Malkin says something crazy and people demand a boycott, it isn’t threatening her First Amendment rights. It’s just the consequences of saying something that others vehemently oppose.
If this case were Al Franken suing Focus on the Family and the basic facts were the same, you would see it my way and demand the ACLU defend Focus on the Family and I would agree with you whole-heartedly.
You’re being blinded by the fact that, to put it bluntly, CAIR sucks. But CAIR’s First Amendment rights are no different from any other non-profit with an agenda to push.
The price of exposing CAIR is too high here. This lawsuit is a disaster in the making.
More specifically, Trusted ID clarified their position here:
Check the frats ceremonial manual and you’ll see it is based on Christian beliefs. In the section discussing mourning and funerals, they post suggested prayers including kadish (jewish).
There is another translation for the motto “per crusem cresens” here:
Nooooooo…it is SAVAGE’S Free speech Rights that are being infringed here, not CAIR’s. No one is telling CAIR what to say and what not to say. No one is boycotting CAR for what they said. CAIR is attempting to force Savage out of a job, out of his career and his source of income for expressing something he said, for using his FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Therefore, they are being a bully, they are forcing their will upon a private citizen. Therefore, if the ACLU were to be true to their convictions and their creed, they would be coming to his aid. however, because of what he has said about them in the past, they will not be offering him their sevices. They will, however, continue to offer their services to pedophiles and peddlers of child pornography as they fight for THEIR First Ammendment Rights.
CAIR likes to bully people. CAIR likes to lable everyone who does not drop to their knees facing East 5 times a day as Islamophobic and sue them accordingly. It is their goal to make this an Islamic country, and to fund Jihadist organizations and governments along the way and remove anyone that stands in their way in this country, utilizing our own laws against us. Who is it that is there to lend them a helping hand every step of the way? The ACLU and fellow Liberals. Congrats with that.
I personally do not much care for Dr. Savage. I think he is shrill and screams alot and while I was trying to listen to a debate awhile back he wouldn’t shut up and he was the only one who had it on and it pissed me off. However, he has every right to be on, and if he wants to call them every racist name in the book, then by God, he has that right. There still are no thought police in this country, and you are still capable of turning the dial or turning it off. You are not exempt from having your feelings hurt. PERIOD!
This thread is a little old now, so it’s unfortunate that you could miss this… but I feel the need to point this out anyways,
RetFireman, you have no idea what you’re talking about and your last comment is, frankly, embarassing.
Savage is. Suing someone means “stop saying this.” Duh.
Yes. Which is completely fine.
Michelle Malkin urged a boycott of Miller for supporting an S+M rally and an immigrant rally. Miler has a right to support those things. They, and Savage, don’t have a right to be protected from blowback.
They aren’t forcing anything. They are pushing their agenda. Being a private citizen does not protect you from other people actively disagreeing with your views.
If some dude profits from espousing white supremacist beliefs, would you have a problem with the NAACP urging other to boycott him? If someone publicly demands the destruction of Israel, should Jewish groups not urge a boycott of anyone who supports that person?
Wrong. Quite the opposite.
Yeah. That sure stopped them from publicly defending the great ACLU-defender Rush Limbaugh.
Then you go on to complain about CAIR. Which is fine. I don’t like them either. Their ties to Hamas are unacceptable.
But, your last line!
I agree. No one is suing Savage to get him off the air. Savage is suing them because his feelings are gettng hurt. Ok, technically because of copyright issues. But what CAIR is doing is so obviously legal that this case won’t go anywhere. Savage is the problem.
RetFireman, honestly, your last post was fantasticly stupid. I hate to personally offend you (I don’t want to lose my comment privs), but, seriously! Look at what you wrote! It’s crazy and indefensible and you must know that it’s indefensible. You don’t have facts on your side and you don’t have reason. You just have a hatred of CAIR.
I get why some people are conservatives. I love getting to have respectful conversations with EnglishQueen for example. But I can’t debate with someone who just has no clue.