GRITtv: Michael Savage Cries Defamation

From: Brave New Films




If you were hoping right wing talk radio host Michael Savage might move to London, you’ll be disappointed to learn they won’t have him. The British Home Office released what it called a name and shame list recently, dentifying 16 of the apparent 101 people who are barred from entering the country under strengthened travel laws adopted after the July 7, 2005 subway bombings. The Home Office described Savage as “seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.”

Others on the list include a former member of the Palestine Liberation Front, a Saudi Arabian Religious scholar, and a Pakistani cleric. The Rev. Fred Phelps, a pastor in Kansas, and his daughter were also on the list and barred for “fostering hatred.” Phelps is known for never missing an opportunity to preach against the LGBT community.

It’s tempting to cheer the British government’s decision to keep some of these undesirables out, certainly to call them out. But it raises a number of disturbing questions, of course, and could be used to bar anyone the government dislikes. Where do you draw the line? It’s an age old question.

What isn’t a question is that Michael Savage is a hypocrite. Endlessly defaming just about anyone he doesn’t like, Savage has said he’s considering a lawsuit against the British home secretary for, ahem, defamation. Yeah, good luck with that.

For more, visit GRITtv.

Lawsuit Charging Sheriff Arpaio Illegally Targeted Latinos In Maricopa County Can Go Forward

SOURCE: Candela A.from Phoenix

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 11, 2009

CONTACT:

Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 650-1854 ext. 106 (office) or 602-418-5499 (cell)

Maria Archuleta, ACLU National, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org

Laura Rodriguez, MALDEF, (310) 956-2425; lrodriguez@maldef.org

Jamie Moss, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, (201) 493-1027; newsPRos@aol.com

PHOENIX – A federal court ruled that a class action lawsuit charging that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio illegally profiled Latinos can proceed.

In July 2008, five individuals and Somos America, a Latino community-based coalition, sued Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) and Maricopa County, claiming that they or their members were unlawfully stopped and mistreated by law enforcement agents because they were Latino. The county asked the U.S. District Court in Arizona to dismiss the lawsuit in October, but today’s ruling clears the way for the lawsuit to go forward.

The court recognized that a Latino appearance is of “little or no use” in determining which individuals should be stopped by law enforcement seeking "illegal aliens," and that reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation does not justify questioning of drivers or passengers about immigration status.

“At stake in this case is a matter of acute public importance. Law enforcement practices that target a group based on the color of their skin have no place in America ,” said Peter Kozinets, an attorney at Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Phoenix who argued the case. “This is a critical step in protecting the rights of all people in this country.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arizona, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and lead counsel Steptoe & Johnson LLP are representing the five individuals and Somos America and charge that the policies and practices of Arpaio and the county are discriminatory and unlawfully violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Arizona Constitution. The amended lawsuit builds upon an earlier complaint filed in December 2007.

“We’re encouraged that the sheriff’s office’s practice of targeting people simply because of the color of their skin can now be fully examined in a court of law,” said ACLU of Arizona Legal Director Dan Pochoda, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. “Sheriff Arpaio’s discriminatory policies have no place in a free country. We do not want to live in a place where you can be stopped for no reason and asked for ‘your papers please.’”

Arpaio has launched a series of so-called “crime suppression sweeps” in Maricopa County in Latino neighborhoods and in areas where Latinos work as day laborers. Maricopa County residents and local officials alike have complained that the conduct of the sheriff and his office go well beyond the scope of the MCSO's legal authority and often results in the harassment of Latinos.

“We are very pleased that this important case will be heard,” said MALDEF staff attorney Kristina Campbell. “In America we value fairness and equality, but Sheriff Arpaio’s sweeps have resulted in the harassment of Latinos and violated their civil rights. There’s nothing fair about that.”

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has denounced Sheriff Arpaio and last April, after the MCSO engaged in sweeps in the town of Guadalupe, Gordon formally requested that former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey launch a Justice Department investigation into Sheriff Arpaio's and the MCSO's "discriminatory harassment, improper stops, searches and arrests" of Latino persons in Maricopa County. Gordon has also publicly stated that the sweeps are interfering with the work of undercover city police officers and federal agents.

Lawyers on the case, Ortega Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al., include Mónica Ramírez of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona; Campbell and Nancy Ramirez of MALDEF; and Kozinets, David Bodney, Karen Hartman-Tellez and Isaac Hernandez of Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

Today’s ruling is online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/38709lgl20090210.html

The complaint is online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/35998lgl20080716.html

The letter from Mayor Gordon to Attorney General Mukasey is online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/35981res20080404.html

More information about the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project is online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/index.html

More information about Steptoe & Johnson LLP is online at: www.steptoe.com

Alessandra Soler Meetze

Executive Director

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona

P.O. Box 17148

Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148

T: 602-773-6006 (direct)

T: 602-650-1854 ext. 106

F: 602-650-1376

Visit us on the web at: www.acluaz.org

Hate Speech: Brave New Films sued Hate-Monger Michael Savage

SOURCE: Cynthia I.

Brave New Films sues Michael Savage over YouTube takedown

04:42 PM PT, Oct 10 2008

Audio with the full comments

Brave New Films, , the Web video production company run by liberal filmmaker Robert Greenwald ("Outfoxed," Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price"), is suing conservative talk-show host Michael Savage in a copyright dispute that hinges on the takedown of a one-minute-long YouTube video.

The video called "Michael Savage Hates Muslims" (and still available here) features a photo of Savage, along with a short audio excerpt from the "Savage Nation" program, in which Savage makes clear his disdain for Muslims and Islam. "You can take your religion and shove it up your behind," he yells at one point. "I'm sick of you."

Brave New Films has an adversarial history with Savage. The company maintains a site called NoSavage.org, which features the "Michael Savage Hates Muslims" video along with links to other inflammatory remarks by the host.

The complaint holds that Talk Radio Network Inc., the Oregon company that syndicates Savage's show, sent a takedown request to YouTube for the video on Oct. 2 -- the night of the vice presidential debate, and a moment of intense interest in online political news. As a result of the network's request, YouTube not only removed the offending video but disabled Brave New Films' YouTube channel completely. Because Brave New Films uses the YouTube player to embed its videos on its own public website, that site suffered as well.

According to YouTube, copyright law requires the company to terminate accounts that repeatedly infringe, and Brave New Films had problems with Viacom last year when they used material from the "Colbert Report." Suspensions can be lifted if one or more of the claims are retracted.

Reached for a comment before the suit was officially filed, Phil Newmark, a producer at Talk Radio Network, said on behalf of Savage, "Michael never sent a complaint to YouTube about anything. This did not come from him in any way, shape or form." Newmark said he had no information about where the complaint originated, but said he would contact TRN's chief executive, Mark Masters, to inquire. TRN is also named in the suit.

Brave New Films' channel is No. 71 of all time among YouTube directors -- a highly competitive category. The company's 300 separate videos have collectively earned 36 million views. Greenwald was able to get his channel reactived by midmorning on Friday, but by then it had missed the big wave of debate-related traffic. Adding to the trouble was that Brave New Films had taken out a full-page ad in the New York Times that morning, while its site was still incapacitated.

Greenwald called the situation, which left most of his company's content "dead" during a time of peak political interest, "incredibly scary and troubling."

"On some level, no matter what the damages are, we can't get back the views of Thursday and the views and impact of Friday, when the New York Times ad came out," he said in a phone interview.

The lawsuit, brought by Brave New Films with attorneys from Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, asks that the court declare that the Savage video was a so-called fair use of the material, rather than a copyright infringement. The suit also seeks damages to compensate for "harm to [Brave New Films'] free speech rights and the visibility Brave New Films had worked so hard to achieve."

In 2007, Savage sued the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations over its use of the very same audio excerpt in a similar video, claiming copyright infringement. The court dismissed the case entirely, concluding that the CAIR's repurposing of the audio was fair use.