It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'About 60 Organizations' Are Considering a Lawsuit Against the SPLC Following $3M Settlement

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

It is truly a shame that an organization that apparently started out with such noble ambitions got twisted into the hateful group we see today. but it's not the first time; the KKK was originally an anti-corruption vigilante group that turned racist after the War of Northern Aggression.

But just like we had to smother out the KKK, we now need to smother out the SPLC.

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Next up... the ADL!

Justice for Pepe!



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Guess we'll just have to wait and see how the lawsuits go.

Pretty sure they've been sued before.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
I understand your feelings. For the past 20 or more years it has been that way. It wasn't that way when Julian Bond ran it. Some of my relatives helped raise the funds to get it started. They taught in the Birmingham schools and saw the injustices done to black students. They saw Dr. King and Julian Bond as men who could change the hearts and minds of people. They were men who argued reason, not emotion.

Sadly, it seems in today's world reason has been sent into exile and emotion crowned as Emperor.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

It's just frustrating. The KKK goes bad, the SPLC goes bad, even the American Civil Liberties Union started as a good thing before they became the Anti-Christian Litigation Unit. It seems every time someone starts a good organization to try and improve things, the idiots move in and take it over.

Heck, look what happened to the Tea Party, Operation Occupy, and Black Lives Matter. All started with good ideas, but they turned extreme before anyone could get behind them.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Out of curiosity do you consider groups such as KKK, white supremacists and the Black Panther Party hate groups?



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
And let us not forget that the conservation movement turned into the environmental nanny movement. It went from wanting to conserve the resources of nature to "management" of nature. What was it Robbie Burns said about the plans of mice and men when he was apologizing to the mouse for having plowed up her nest?




But Mouse, you are not alone,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes of mice and men Go often askew,
And leave us nothing but grief and pain,
For promised joy!


I don't guess the human condition has radically changed since he penned those words in the 18th century.
edit on 22-6-2018 by diggindirt because: correction



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: RowanBean

I consider them undesirable groups. I disagree with the label "hate group" and try not to use it unless the organization in question uses it first.

Hate is an emotion, not an action. Everybody hates someone or something at some time, but that is not and should not be illegal. I disagree with "hate crime" laws as well... show me a "love crime" and I might change my opinion on that. All violent crime is hateful and should be prosecuted; the thoughts that may have been present are irrelevant.

Now, if you want to define a "hate group" as a group that exists primarily to hate another group, then using that definition the KKK, SPLC, BLM. ACLU, and Black Panthers are all "hate groups." I know of no organized white supremacist group outside the KKK.

And unfortunately, there is a subset of the Democratic Party that is quickly falling into that same category.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



I consider them undesirable groups. I disagree with the label "hate group" and try not to use it unless the organization in question uses it first.

So you don't think that KKK and white supremacists hate blacks and Jews? And you don't think that Westboro Baptist Church hate gay people, despite their signs declaring such thing?



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


And let us not forget that the conservation movement turned into the environmental nanny movement. It went from wanting to conserve the resources of nature to "management" of nature.

How true are your words!

In my experience those who wish to manage nature are not truly attempting to manage it as much as they are trying to force it to be what they want it to be. Nature just don't work like that... never has, never will. The best way to "manage" nature is to leave it the Hades alone as much as humanly possible. We are not conducive to improving nature.

When we create waste, we turn it into septic tanks and landfills which are nasty and completely undesirable to be near for a very long time. When nature creates waste, we call it a beach and flock there in droves.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: RowanBean


So you don't think that KKK and white supremacists hate blacks and Jews? And you don't think that Westboro Baptist Church hate gay people, despite their signs declaring such thing?

Do you have a specific goal for twisting my words into some warped version of a 27 dimensional pretzel, or are you just bored?

Re-read what I posted, please:

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: RowanBean

Now, if you want to define a "hate group" as a group that exists primarily to hate another group, then using that definition the KKK, SPLC, BLM. ACLU, and Black Panthers are all "hate groups." I know of no organized white supremacist group outside the KKK.

And unfortunately, there is a subset of the Democratic Party that is quickly falling into that same category.

TheRedneck


And yes, you can add Westboro Baptist Church to that list of groups that I feel exist primarily in order to hate other groups.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



Do you have a specific goal for twisting my words into some warped version of a 27 dimensional pretzel, or are you just bored?

Don't worry. That is not my intention at all.


I was just replying to what you said:


Best news I have heard all day! With all due respect for those who have followed the history of the SPLC, every time I hear the name it seems to be in conjunction with them trying to force their agendas on someone else. They are the biggest hate group in Alabama. And the fact that they are allowed to be based in Alabama just makes it that much worse. I hope they are taken for every dime they ever thought about having and forced to close their doors forever. A nice cherry on top would be for the organizers to be run out of the state at the end of a flaming pitchfork, but alas, that won't happen.

Basically they can sue me and you and ATS for allowing threads declaring certain groups as hate groups and take every dime what we own. That's my point. If a group is an hate group then it will lose in a lawsuit. No dime will be given to them.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: RowanBean

OK, I see your point... well-made. But that point only illustrates what I insinuated (or at least tried to insinuate) in my earlier post: hate cannot be a crime. It is simply illogical and inherently dangerous for any emotion to be declared an implicit part of any legal proceeding.

I despise Westboro Baptist Church. Years ago, after those Amish girls were shot, I and some other truckers heard a rumor that WBC was going to protest the funerals. I was one of the organizers of a group that intended for that not to happen: a group of 50+ semis in and around the York PA area all who told their dispatcher to grab something and hold on. Does that sound like I have any love for WBC?

I have been personally invited to join the KKK twice in my life by a friend who was also a member. Both times, I responded the same way: "I'm sorry, but I don't need your help to hate somebody. Would you like to join me?" Does that sound like I have any tender feelings for the KKK?

Truth is, I hate those groups that exist solely to hate others. Not real fond of Yankees either, as a group. That is my right. As long as I do not instigate violence against them, I should be allowed to hate whoever I wish whenever I wish. So should they. This is not something the law should be involved in. Now, if anyone takes that hatred and turns it into violence, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That is an action.

Incidentally, I consider the actions of the SPLC in publicly publishing a list of groups they then mis-characterize as a "hate group" as a violent action definitely worthy of civil action and potentially worthy of criminal action. Their actions are quite different from my or your posting about their actions, in that we are also discussing more than simply how hateful someone else is.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



I despise Westboro Baptist Church. Years ago, after those Amish girls were shot, I and some other truckers heard a rumor that WBC was going to protest the funerals. I was one of the organizers of a group that intended for that not to happen: a group of 50+ semis in and around the York PA area all who told their dispatcher to grab something and hold on. Does that sound like I have any love for WBC?

I think I love you. LOL.



Incidentally, I consider the actions of the SPLC in publicly publishing a list of groups they then mis-characterize as a "hate group" as a violent action definitely worthy of civil action and potentially worthy of criminal action.

Not sure what you mean about mis-charactering an hate group as a violent action? You mean the potential violence those hate groups might pose?
I can give you an example of a potential "violence" or "force". One example is a group suggesting that gay children go through gay conversion therapy. That's mild compared to other groups.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: RowanBean


I think I love you. LOL.

Don't misunderstand me; I am not a violent man. I pick my fights carefully, and will gladly (attempt to) walk away from one that is not worth it. But that one was worth it. I do not share the beliefs of the Amish... I like my technology. But I also admire their tenacity in sticking to their beliefs despite the hardships those beliefs cause, and doing so in as peaceful way as possible. No one was going to interrupt that funeral. WBC be damned, law enforcement be damned, the whole damn world be damned, no one was getting in as long as I could stand.


Not sure what you mean about mis-charactering an hate group as a violent action? You mean the potential violence those hate groups might pose?

I am saying that the hate is not the issue. The actions are the issue. That is admittedly different than how people have been trained to think today. As long as they assault no one and do not actually cause someone to be denied their civil rights, the KKK can, as far as I am concerned, walk around all day long in their little robes holding their hateful little signs. I will oppose anyone who tries to prevent them from having the right to do so. On the other hand, the second they throw a punch or attempt to stop someone from exercising their rights by force or intimidation, they find themselves on my bad side in a big way.

The same goes with SPLC. I checked out their website before I joined the thread. They actually have a map and a list of their so-called "hate groups." Some of those are the few small pockets of the KKK that still exist, but others are simply organizations devoted to promoting Southern values and pride. That is slander. Slander is an illegal action.


I can give you an example of a potential "violence" or "force". One example is a group suggesting that gay children go through gay conversion therapy. That's mild compared to other groups.

I do not see a suggestion as being enough to warrant a lawsuit or criminal proceeding. Now, should someone try to force or intimidate others to go through such a procedure, that is where they cross the line. I know I have heard that Pence has in the past held similar beliefs... no biggie unless he tries to legally institute them, at which time I will call for his removal from office. There is a difference between openly believing something and trying to force it on others.

To clarify, I do not believe the conversion therapies will work. I do believe there is likely a mental issue that changed the sexual identity, but it is not debilitating, not "evil," and likely beyond any "treatment" we have the understanding to effectively implement. Phobias fall into the same category, and are normally not a problem and do not require any treatment. So far as that goes, religious views could be objectively classified as such since there can be no proof by their very definition. I don't think we should treat religious views like some sort of disease either. Our life experiences, our environments, and our inherited neural initializations are what make us all individuals. They are not something to be treated. They are something to be accepted and even appreciated.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



I am saying that the hate is not the issue. The actions are the issue.

I think I see your point. We shouldn't call them hate groups just because of their different opinions and they won't do nothing. Like FRC making up researches and studies about the gay people to make them look bad.
What about certain groups that use researches and studies by Dr. Mengele?
The point of the list on SPLC website is to keep watch on them in case they do something. No different from FBI keeping a watch on certain people and groups in case they do something.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: RowanBean


I think I see your point. We shouldn't call them hate groups just because of their different opinions and they won't do nothing. Like FRC making up researches and studies about the gay people to make them look bad.

I didn't say they wouldn't do anything... just that they are not violating the law until they do. Until some action is taken to either incite violence or deny civil rights (overt or through intimidation), there is no legal action to be taken. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to have unpopular opinions, by definition.

Please don't try to read between the lines. I don't write there.

Incidentally, who is this FRC?


What about certain groups that use researches and studies by Dr. Mengele?

Not sure who Dr. Mengele is, although I think I heard the name before somewhere?

Research is research. Sometimes the conclusions indicated are uncomfortable. We have, however, a Bill of Rights to protect us from overzealous social engineers and a democratic republic to ensure that fringe opinions do not translate into law. We also have public opinion that works both ways... a flawed research conclusion should be quickly exposed by the public.


The point of the list on SPLC website is to keep watch on them in case they do something. No different from FBI keeping a watch on certain people and groups in case they do something.

I disagree. The SPLC is not a government agency and thus is not subject to the will of the people nor even to certain parts of the Constitution. The FBI is. Even considering that, I am not a fan of the FBI using any more such surveillance than is absolutely necessary to protect the public.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



Incidentally, who is this FRC?

www.splcenter.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



Not sure who Dr. Mengele is, although I think I heard the name before somewhere?

en.wikipedia.org...



We have, however, a Bill of Rights to protect us from overzealous social engineers and a democratic republic to ensure that fringe opinions do not translate into law. We also have public opinion that works both ways... a flawed research conclusion should be quickly exposed by the public.

That's exactly the point here. We've seen that with Reagan and Moral Majority. We've seen that with Ted Cruz and his father pushing dominionism. We've seen that with Pence and the far right evangelicals.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: RowanBean

Thank you for the links.

The FRC is a group that seeks to implement public policy, but I do not see where they are doing so by slandering others. I happen to disagree with many of their conclusions (as my previous post should have indicated), but I see nothing they are doing which is illegal or immoral. They have, as I stated earlier, the right to hate anyone or anything whenever they wish. They also have the right to state their beliefs and their reasons behind them. I happen to agree with things like not making the HIV vaccine mandatory for school, simply because I do not believe there is enough knowledge about the human physiology to make any such sweeping legislation. On the other hand, I disagree with their statements about the supposed dangers of homosexuality.

That's how it is supposed to work. Anyone can put out their opinions, hateful or not, factual or not, and those reading them then decide whether or not they have presented a convincing argument.

Dr. Mengele... I knew the name sounded familiar. I tend to think of him as "Dr. Eugenics" because that was his agenda. His actions were inherently criminal: forced experimentation on humans against their will, and research into eugenics, which can be seen as somehow "purifying" the human race. Just the research would not be a problem, except that his research was criminal for the reason I already mentioned. But just as troubling was that he had direct access to a sadistic dictator with no governmental checks and balances. He had the means and desire to force his research into law.

I happen to believe his research conclusions were primarily the result of biased experiments as well... which is likely why I didn't immediately recall the name. I will say that there is some evidence that shows his experiments were in some ways successful in "improving" the human race, but any such success is, IMO far, far less desirable than what we have now. His conclusions were biased, his experiments were criminal, his agenda was horrendous, and his attitude was inflexible... in other words, he was not a good enough scientist IMO for me to waste a neural path to remember him.

I hope you did not intend to place the FRC and Mengele in the same classification.


We've seen that with Reagan and Moral Majority. We've seen that with Ted Cruz and his father pushing dominionism. We've seen that with Pence and the far right evangelicals.

What laws have been passed that are harmful to those who do not support dominionism? A few states or municipalities have passed such laws, but they were quickly shot down by the courts. Even a Federal law would be shot down similarly, because it is unconstitutional.

Also, remember that Reagan and Cruz are subject to the ultimate check and balance: they have to be elected by the people. Their actions are then in concert with the will of the people, and still subject to the Bill of Rights. That does not apply to the KKK, SPLC, FRC, BLM, WBC, or any of the other private organizations.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you for a wonderful discussion. You're a great person.
But I gotta go.




new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join