Opinion The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam...

[PHATV]

Interesting take given it's from an insider. Of course, any objective person could see the SPLC for what it is. But interesting to hear someone who knows speak the truth. The ACLU is one in the same. A complete racket. A liberal political entity. A scam.


U.S. USA TODAY Opinion
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam that nearly caused me to be murdered
After internal challenges with discrimination, the Southern Poverty Law Center can't call itself an arbiter of justice.

 

[IGotAHugePeckah]

Yeah, they're absolute garbage and it's amazing that so many still take them serious.

John Stossel destroyed them a year ago

 

[VivaRevolution]

Interesting take given it's from an insider. Of course, any objective person could see the SPLC for what it is. But interesting to hear someone who knows speak the truth. The ACLU is one in the same. A complete racket. A liberal political entity. A scam.


U.S. USA TODAY Opinion
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam that nearly caused me to be murdered
After internal challenges with discrimination, the Southern Poverty Law Center can't call itself an arbiter of justice.

I want to see if you can find a leftist here that will defend the SPLC.

They lost me when they started calling anyone who criticizes Israel as part of a hate group.

 

[NoDak]

The ACLU is one in the same.

Nope.

 

[PHATV]

Nope.

Yep.

 

[PinkFlammingo]

Interesting take given it's from an insider. Of course, any objective person could see the SPLC for what it is. But interesting to hear someone who knows speak the truth. The ACLU is one in the same. A complete racket. A liberal political entity. A scam.


U.S. USA TODAY Opinion
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam that nearly caused me to be murdered
After internal challenges with discrimination, the Southern Poverty Law Center can't call itself an arbiter of justice.

That woman looks like she has great intentions

 

[VivaRevolution]

Nope.

Proven by their repeated defense of religious rights, and 2nd amendment rights.

@PHATV I hope this is just ignorance on your part, but i strongly encourage you to look into what a defender of rights, in a non-partisan way, the ACLU still is.

They surely have some bias in their press releases, but as far as legal action, in defense of every Americans rights, they shouldn't be slandered.

 

[NoDak]

Yep.

The SPLC has defended the constitutional rights of literal white supremacists on multiple occasions? They aren't one in the same, period.

 

[Mr Holmes]

I want to see if you can find a leftist here that will defend the SPLC.

They lost me when they started calling anyone who criticizes Israel as part of a hate group.

There's plenty of threads that use them as a source.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I learned this after what they did to Ayaan hirsi Ali

 

[VivaRevolution]

Surely, a coincidence.

 

[NoDak]

Proven by their repeated defense of religious rights, and 2nd amendment rights.

@PHATV I hope this is just ignorance on your part, but i strongly encourage you to look into what a defender of rights, in a non-partisan way, the ACLU still is.

They surely have some bias in their press releases, but as far as legal action, in defense of every Americans rights, they shouldn't be slandered.

White Babies! White Babies for Everyone!



<45>

 

[KeepItRealist]

Always has been. It's just no one gave a damn when they targeting so-called "militia types" and the "far-right" for decades using their donations from rich progressives to destroy the lives of people who have a little money they could get in a lawsuit.

 

[Prokofievian]

Lmao, this is allegedly a hate group according to the SPLC

http://www.revandrewangel.com/site/index.html

That...web...design.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Lmao, this is allegedly a hate group according to the SPLC

http://www.revandrewangel.com/site/index.html

That...web...design.

As a software developer, I threw up a lil bit in my mouth. However, if you scroll to the bottom they actually link out to stormfront.

 

[NoDak]

They surely have some bias in their press releases, but as far as legal action, in defense of every Americans rights, they shouldn't be slandered.

People of right-wing persuasion better wise up.

The ACLU is the GOAT.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/aclus-longstanding-commitment-defending-speech-we-hate

The ACLU, the nation’s oldest and largest civil liberties organization, has always had its share of critics. Many condemned us for defending Nazis’ right to march in Skokie in the 1970s. Some, like former Attorney General Ed Meese, labeled us the “criminals’ lobby” for advocating for constitutional rights for those accused of crime.

We earned few friends when we represented Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen suspected of terrorist ties and killed in a drone strike by the Obama administration. After we represented a white supremacist denied a permit by the city of Charlottesville, we were criticized for defending white supremacists.

Such criticism comes with the territory, and does not dissuade us from defending the Bill of Rights, no matter how unpopular our clients may be.

But Wendy Kaminer’s criticism, published in the Wall Street Journal, is different from those challenges to our work. Her critique is predicated on a fundamental misrepresentation. She falsely accuses the ACLU of having secretly changed its policy regarding free speech — and of launching an investigation to determine who “leaked” the “secret” document that she claims reveals this asserted change in policy.

In fact, the ACLU remains fully committed to defending free speech as the document she cites – our guidelines for case selection -- expressly reaffirms. That document does not change our longstanding policies and has never been secret.

After the tragic events in Charlottesville, we reaffirmed our commitment to defending speech with which we disagree. The ACLU Board — the only entity with the authority to change ACLU policy — discussed Charlottesville, and no one on the staff or the board asked the board to change our policies.

Nonetheless, it seemed clear to us that guidelines would help ACLU affiliates and national staff in considering cases that might pose conflicts between our values. We are a multi-issue organization, and some cases may present conflicts, such as between gay rights and religious freedom, privacy and women’s rights, or speech rights and equality. The guidelines, which have been distributed to all ACLU staff members, are explicitly designed to help affiliates and national staff think through various factors in case selection decisions.

And if you don’t believe our words, judge us by our acts. We represent Milo Yiannopoulos in a suit against the Washington, D.C. Metro system for suppressing ads for his book. We are defending a student group in San Diego that was penalized for publishing a satire of “safe spaces” that some students and faculty deem offensive.

We disagree sharply with those who engage in terrorism, criminal activity, homophobic or racist speech, or attempts to dissuade women from obtaining abortions. Yet we have defended the constitutional rights of terrorists, criminals, anti-gay and racist bigots, and right-to-life advocates. We don’t burn flags, but we defend the rights of those who do. Indeed, we’ll even defend Kaminer’s right to criticize the ACLU. But we do wish she’d get the facts straight.

 

[Prokofievian]

As a software developer, I threw up a lil bit in my mouth. However, if you scroll to the bottom they actually link out to stormfront.

They do indeed. I didn't make it that far on my first go around.

 

[VivaRevolution]

People of right-wing persuasion better wise up.

The ACLU is the GOAT.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/aclus-longstanding-commitment-defending-speech-we-hate

The ACLU, the nation’s oldest and largest civil liberties organization, has always had its share of critics. Many condemned us for defending Nazis’ right to march in Skokie in the 1970s. Some, like former Attorney General Ed Meese, labeled us the “criminals’ lobby” for advocating for constitutional rights for those accused of crime.

We earned few friends when we represented Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen suspected of terrorist ties and killed in a drone strike by the Obama administration. After we represented a white supremacist denied a permit by the city of Charlottesville, we were criticized for defending white supremacists.

Such criticism comes with the territory, and does not dissuade us from defending the Bill of Rights, no matter how unpopular our clients may be.

But Wendy Kaminer’s criticism, published in the Wall Street Journal, is different from those challenges to our work. Her critique is predicated on a fundamental misrepresentation. She falsely accuses the ACLU of having secretly changed its policy regarding free speech — and of launching an investigation to determine who “leaked” the “secret” document that she claims reveals this asserted change in policy.

In fact, the ACLU remains fully committed to defending free speech as the document she cites – our guidelines for case selection -- expressly reaffirms. That document does not change our longstanding policies and has never been secret.

After the tragic events in Charlottesville, we reaffirmed our commitment to defending speech with which we disagree. The ACLU Board — the only entity with the authority to change ACLU policy — discussed Charlottesville, and no one on the staff or the board asked the board to change our policies.

Nonetheless, it seemed clear to us that guidelines would help ACLU affiliates and national staff in considering cases that might pose conflicts between our values. We are a multi-issue organization, and some cases may present conflicts, such as between gay rights and religious freedom, privacy and women’s rights, or speech rights and equality. The guidelines, which have been distributed to all ACLU staff members, are explicitly designed to help affiliates and national staff think through various factors in case selection decisions.

And if you don’t believe our words, judge us by our acts. We represent Milo Yiannopoulos in a suit against the Washington, D.C. Metro system for suppressing ads for his book. We are defending a student group in San Diego that was penalized for publishing a satire of “safe spaces” that some students and faculty deem offensive.

We disagree sharply with those who engage in terrorism, criminal activity, homophobic or racist speech, or attempts to dissuade women from obtaining abortions. Yet we have defended the constitutional rights of terrorists, criminals, anti-gay and racist bigots, and right-to-life advocates. We don’t burn flags, but we defend the rights of those who do. Indeed, we’ll even defend Kaminer’s right to criticize the ACLU. But we do wish she’d get the facts straight.

Yup, in a court room, they are above reproach.

They are what we say we are.

I wont defend their press room spokespeople to the same extent.

 

[PHATV]

Proven by their repeated defense of religious rights, and 2nd amendment rights.

@PHATV I hope this is just ignorance on your part, but i strongly encourage you to look into what a defender of rights, in a non-partisan way, the ACLU still is.

They surely have some bias in their press releases, but as far as legal action, in defense of every Americans rights, they shouldn't be slandered.

I'll plead ignorance.

What have they done to promote the 2nd and why types of religious freedoms where they defending?

 

[Cirris]

The SPLC has defended the constitutional rights of literal white supremacists on multiple occasions? They aren't one in the same, period.

You mean the ACLU?? Which is a true statement.

---------------------------------------------

On the other hand SPLC has turned into complete leftist trash. They act like bitchy humanity professors. And they've gotten their ass handed to them in court a bunch of times now. Because they play loose with the facts to back up their condemnations.