Over at the Huffington Post, Dr. Peter Breggin today has mounted what I guess he thinks is quite the defense of our favorite lying gasbag, Michael Savage.

The focus of his piece is on the First Amendment, freedom of speech. But curiously, no one is allowed to comment on his post.

Breggin seems to be piqued because Savage's former flagship station, KNEW, unceremoniously dumped Savage last week. The only explanation was a terse mention on the station's Web site that management had chosen to go in a different philosophical direction, provide more local-oriented talk, and Savage did not fit in that vision.

This happens in radio all the time, by the way. Radio stations change formats as often as Michael Savage lies.

Anyway, Breggin poo-poohs KNEW's stated desire to provide its listeners with more local content, stating -- without any corroboration -- that Americans aren't interested in local issues, we just care about what's happening on the national stage.

Right, doc. That's why national newspaper chains are focusing on hyper-local coverage now. Because people aren't interested in local coverage.

But Breggin also wraps Savage's dismissal in the First Amendment. "Support Michael Savage and freedom of speech!" he exhorts his readers.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Since when did the First Amendment guarantee us all a nationally syndicated radio show? Answer: It doesn't. If it did, we would all be suing for out three-hour slot.

Savage is perfectly free to set up on any street corner, or a park, or go on the Internet (as he has frequently threatened to do) and spew his filth. There has been no abridgement of his First Amendment freedom.

If this were a First Amendment issue, no broadcasting company could ever fire a host. Ever.

I would have loved to have left this on Breggin's column, but I couldn't. Comments have been disabled on the piece, which was posted only a few hours ago.

Were I Doc Breggin, I would be more concerned about the perception of readers not being able to comment on his post than of any shadowy motives by KNEW in dumping Savage. You're purportedly supporting free speech, doc, you're condemning a radio station for exercising its rights as a corporation and charging that it is abridging savage's free speech rights, and yet you allow no one the opportunity to disagree with you in your space.

On second thought, that fits in precisely with Savage. He, too, is a blowhard who makes outlandish statement and is afraid to face a dissenting opinion.

Keep the faith.