Southern Poverty Law Center's Criteria for Naming 'Hate Groups' Subpoenaed

[PRB]

^^ Sounds like the SPLC.

Do you have a better definition?

 

[PRB]

this is straight from Delgaudio's page

In recent years, our efforts have focused on supporting:
A federal traditional marriage (man-woman) amendment to the Constitution to defend tradional marriage from assaults from those who claim to promote "same sex marriage";
School prayer and the freedom of religious expression in public places;
Faith-based and community initiatives;
Pro-life legislation;
The promotion and protection of the Boy Scouts, organized sports and other activities that reinforce morality, accountability and leadership in our youth;
Tax cuts and the exposure of wasteful "pork barrel" spending for the benefit of liberal special interests;
Equality under the law, regardless of one's sexual orientation.
Supporting these important efforts also means opposing those who stand steadfastly against them. Through public demonstrations, news conferences, media campaigns, petition drives and face-to-face confrontations with leading liberal politicians.

Public Advocate offers strong and vocal opposition to:
Same sex marriage and the furtherance of so-called "Gay Rights";
The National Endowment of the Arts or taxpayer supported art and the federal funding and endorsement of pornography and obscenity as legitimate forms of art from any agency;
The mainstream media's promotion and glorification of drug abuse, teenage sex, gangs, atheism, homosexuality and other immoral behavior and beliefs;
The passage of hate crimes and thought control legislation that creates inequality in our state and federal legal systems and singles out Christians or moral thinking people for persecution, fines, and harrassment by the government at any level;
"Pro-choice" or abortion strengthening legislation that upholds or expands the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973;
The creation of special classes of Americans at the expense of the traditional American family.

does this qualify as "an organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility and malice against persons belonging to a different sexual orientation which differs from that of the members of the organization."?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Do you have a better definition?

I think the one which demonstrates the SPLC to be a hate group is adequate, why?

 

[pcosmar]

^^ Sounds like the SPLC.

So did the MIAC Report,, and other similar Fusion center materials.

And the source of those was the SPLC.

 

[PRB]

I think the one which demonstrates the SPLC to be a hate group is adequate, why?

So your goal is to demonize SPLC, rather than fairly assess the groups which are victimized by SPLC's definition?
What is an example of a group which you believe SHOULD be a hate group but isn't?
What is an example of a group that shouldn't, but is classified by FBI or SPLC?

 

[PRB]

So did the MIAC Report,, and other similar Fusion center materials.

And the source of those was the SPLC.

MIAC report does not mention the word hate group, they identify Militia groups and groups which explicitly and proudly proclaim to be anti-government. What of the MIAC is inaccurate or unfair?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So your goal is to demonize SPLC, rather than fairly assess the groups which are victimized by SPLC's definition?
What is an example of a group which you believe SHOULD be a hate group but isn't?
What is an example of a group that shouldn't, but is classified by FBI or SPLC?

You seem awfully hot and bothered to defend the SPLC. I say they are evil enough as to be self-evident under both their own and federal guidelines, and now you demand that I bring up and cite random cases of injustice to demonstrate their hypocrisy? Considering the littany if citations already existing in this thread, I suspect your demand is not sincere, but smells kinda shilly. The SPLC is a hate group and all they produce is hate propaganda. If that is not self evident to someone, then they may need an encephalogram to check for traumatic brain injury or brain death.

 

[pcosmar]

MIAC report does not mention the word hate group, they identify Militia groups and groups which explicitly and proudly proclaim to be anti-government. What of the MIAC is inaccurate or unfair?

BULLSHIT.

RON PAUL was specifically mentioned. One of the militia Badges was from the Hutaree. (later arrested in a massive show of force,, and much later still acquitted)

the entire MIAC Report was a complete load of shit.

Read it. Then read it again..
It was a huge embarrassment to the State of Missouri and they pulled it.

It was complete and total bullshit..from the very first line.
http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf

The Militia Movement began in the 1980s and reached it's peak in 1996.

Bullshit

 

[PRB]

You seem awfully hot and bothered to defend the SPLC. I say they are evil enough as to be self-evident under both their own and federal guidelines

I cited the FBI definition. So explain to me, who are they hostile towards based on race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, disability...?

, and now you demand that I bring up and cite random cases of injustice to demonstrate their hypocrisy?

No, I just want to understand what definition you use which you think SPLC qualifies for, or what you recommend as a better definition, or what group(s) you believe are unfairly classified.

Considering the littany if citations already existing in this thread, I suspect your demand is not sincere, but smells kinda shilly. The SPLC is a hate group and all they produce is hate propaganda. If that is not self evident to someone, then they may need an encephalogram to check for traumatic brain injury or brain death.

oh yes, if I don't agree with you, my brain isn't working, namecalling always wins an argument. I should've used that.

 

[PRB]

BULLSHIT.

RON PAUL was specifically mentioned.

Who said Ron Paul wasn't mentioned?

One of the militia Badges was from the Hutaree. (later arrested in a massive show of force,, and much later still acquitted)

And your point is what? that Hutaree is a good group?

the entire MIAC Report was a complete load of shit.

Read it. Then read it again..
It was a huge embarrassment to the State of Missouri and they pulled it.

meaning everybody mentioned in the report are good guys? or what?

 

[pcosmar]

Anyone got a better link to the FPIAC Report??
All I have is my photos.

 

[pcosmar]

And your point is what? that Hutaree is a good group?

Yes they were/are. and they are also a small local militia (not multi state).

They were innocent folks that were jailed over 2 years after a Massive Raid (though they were all unarmed at a funeral for a friend)

And they were acquitted after a $10 million prosecution based on NO Evidence at all.

 

[PRB]

Yes they were/are. and they are also s small local militia (not multi state).

They were innocent folks that were jailed over 2 years after a Massive Raid (though they were all unarmed at a funeral for a friend)

And they were acquitted after a $10 million prosecution based on NO Evidence at all.

thanks, that's actually the answer I was looking for. Did you know these people?

 

[mad cow]

So your goal is to demonize SPLC, rather than fairly assess the groups which are victimized by SPLC's definition?
What is an example of a group which you believe SHOULD be a hate group but isn't?
What is an example of a group that shouldn't, but is classified by FBI or SPLC?

No group should be classified as a hate group.Hate crime is a thought crime.There should be no thought crime,I don't care if somebody that commits a crime of force,theft,fraud or fails to live up to the conditions of a contract loves me or hates me or is totally indifferent.

I don't care if somebody that doesn't do any of this loves me or hates me or is totally indifferent as long as they leave me alone.

 

[PRB]

No group should be classified as a hate group.

Ok, fair enough. So racist groups and anti-gay groups have nothing in common, or what would you call them?

Hate crime is a thought crime.

“criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

While on the surface, this seems like it's punishing a person extracurricularly based on hate, the point actually is on the fact that absence the hate, the crime could've been prevented (whereas crimes with no hatred or motivation can't be prevented)

There should be no thought crime,I don't care if somebody that commits a crime of force,theft,fraud or fails to live up to the conditions of a contract loves me or hates me or is totally indifferent.

I don't care if somebody that doesn't do any of this loves me or hates me or is totally indifferent as long as they leave me alone.

I get that you don't care, but would you care if one lead to another and one preventable could have prevented the ultimate result?

 

[pcosmar]

thanks, that's actually the answer I was looking for. Did you know these people?

I followed the case, from the initial raid. Was in contact with Militia folks that got an alert.

The raid was intended to provoke a response from others,, The Hutaree were set up and the arrest arranged by the Fed Informer.
They were known to be unarmed at the time.

 

[mad cow]

Ok, fair enough. So racist groups and anti-gay groups have nothing in common, or what would you call them?




“criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

While on the surface, this seems like it's punishing a person extracurricularly based on hate, the point actually is on the fact that absence the hate, the crime could've been prevented (whereas crimes with no hatred or motivation can't be prevented)



I get that you don't care, but would you care if one lead to another and one preventable could have prevented the ultimate result?

I don't know how to do that thing where you separate somebody's post into individual sentences,but as to your first sentence,I wouldn't call them criminals.

#2 “criminal offense against a person or property"Is a crime regardless of the thought process that did or didn't go into it,as I stated.

Sentences #3 and #4 sound like they came straight out of the movie Minority Report.

 

[PRB]

[/B]

I don't know how to do that thing where you separate somebody's post into individual sentences,but as to your first sentence,I wouldn't call them criminals.

#2 “criminal offense against a person or property"Is a crime regardless of the thought process that did or didn't go into it,as I stated.

Sentences #3 and #4 sound like they came straight out of the movie Minority Report.

Wrong, criminal offense requires intent (with exceptions to strict liability offenses), which is why recklessness is punished less than intentional crimes, which is why if you can't prove a person intended to do something, it's most likely he can get off with "accidental". Thought process matters a lot in criminal law.

 

[pcosmar]

Thought process matters a lot in criminal law.

So you are in favor of prosecuting thought? or Thought Crimes?

 

[mad cow]

So are you now saying Criminal offenses against persons or property are not crimes but somehow thought crimes are?