In Defense of Michael Savage

Britain has upheld a ban against Michael Savage, saying that the radio host is not allowed to enter the country because there is "no evidence" that he did not commit a crime.  I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in my life.

In the United States and in Great Britain, individuals are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  That means that the accuser must prove that the defendant is guilty.  In this case, Mr. Savage is the defendant.

So what does Britain do?  Say they literally have no evidence at all, but that it is up to Mr. Savage to prove that he is innocent.  Now, tell me, how does one show that they did not do something wrong?  You see, it's a simple logical fallacy:  trying to prove a negative.

There is no real documentation that Mr. Savage can pull out and say, "Here, the United States government says I'm innocent" because he did nothing wrong.  There is nothing that says Mr. Savage did anything right or wrong because there was never a need for it; there was no trial, no hearing, no nothing.

Mr. Savage

That is why, in our justice system, the proof is squarely on the prosecutor's shoulders.  If he is to show that something is true, then he must have evidence:  a gun, a bloody car, and in Mr. Savage's case, maybe a transcript.  But they have nothing of the sort.  Instead, they demand that Mr. Savage prove something is not true.

They might as well ask a random person on the street to prove they weren't abducted by aliens last night and that, until they do, they are going to prison.

Simply saying this is ridiculous is not enough.  Go to this site to sign Mr. Savage's petition and demand freedom.

Please bookmark!