I'm not a big Michael Savage fan, but I completely support his suit against the Council on American-Islamic Relations for stealing his material for fund-raising purposes. CAIR is the domestic political wing of our violent jihadist enemies -- they're not merely American Muslims, but Muslims in America with an anti-American agenda.
The lawsuit further accuses CAIR, "which is self anointed as the representative of the civil rights of Muslim Americans," of being "a political organization that advocates a specific political agenda.""The CAIR misappropriation [of the talk show excerpts] was done for political purposes unrelated to civil rights … [but instead] to raise funds for CAIR so that it could self perpetuate and continue to the (sic) disseminate of propaganda on behalf of foreign interests that are opposed to the continued existence of the United States of America as a free nation."
The "repackaged" material suggests a hatred for Islam, but in fact, the lawsuit said, "Michael Savage has presented various views and various perspectives. The purpose of his show (among other purposes) is to present uncensored, genuine points of view that force listeners to both think and feel in ways that normal polite discourse may not allow," said the lawsuit.
"Just as all religions are free to practice in the United States, Michael Savage is free to exercise his beliefs without having someone in the opposition steal his property and convert it for their own use. The violation of the copyright and the desecration of that copyright material is a violation of the freedoms of Michael Savage to express his views," said the action.
I think Michael Savage and I are on the same side, the American side, even though I don't line up with all this thoughts. The courts are typically the forum the Left chooses when it can't enact its will democratically, but this sort of suit might be beneficial if it raises awareness of CAIR's nefarious activities.
The Muslims are going to say that Savage is racist, imperialist, trying to impose his views on peaceful Muslims, etc etc, the whole thing was misconstrued, etc etc.
Actually, MW, the courts are typically the forum chosen by the Christian Right when it can't enact its will democratically, as well. Exhibits include Terry Schiavo and the Massachusetts Family Institute (when the state legislature voted to keep gay marriage legal in MA).
Mark: Citing two contrary examples doesn't refute the broadly true generality that the courts are far more often the forum of choice for the Left rather than the Right, and on far larger issues. See, for example, Roe v. Wade, all the various discrimination lawsuits over the past several decades, Affirmative Action suits, suits over Christmas displays, suits over the Pledge of Allegiance, etc etc.
MW: Refuting was never the intent. My point was to illustrate how it is not as one-sided as you suggest (by omission or otherwise); that the Christian Right is also willing to use the courts when the legislature doesn't share their beliefs on certain issues.
Mark: Typically the right only goes to court to overturn undemocratic leftist rulings. Can you name an example of a lawsuit by the right that sought not to overturn an earlier leftist court ruling but instead attempted to enact a policy that couldn't be gotten legislatively?
MW: Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, Good News Club v. Milford Central School District.
I will look those up tomorrow.
Both are examples of lawsuits that forced a change in policies enacted (or continued) by democratically elected school boards.
Mark: The Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia is appointed by the governor, not democratically elected and not representative of the citizens of Virginia like a local school board would be.
As for Good News Club v. Milford Central School, the only reason that was a federal case at all was because of the federal money that funds local education (which I'm against). I agree that this lawsuit should not have been filed in an ideal world. I think local democratic governments should be more free to discriminate based on religion than they are, and potentially even to establish official religions (though I'd be against it in my locality). However, the intrusion of federal money into every issue complicates the matter greatly.
MW: The fact remains that these cases were brought by and/or funded through the Alliance Defense Fund, the Christian Right's version of the ACLU to enact a change in policy via the courts, instead of seeking the desired change in policy by going through the legislative/democratic process.
Mark: In the UV case there was no democratic recourse. In the other, yeah, I would have preferred a democratic solution.