D. James Kennedy Ministries Sues SPLC over Hate Map

[redleghunter]

D. James Kennedy Ministries Sues SPLC over Hate Map
Coral Ridge broadcaster is first Christian group to take Southern Poverty Law Center to court over ‘anti-LGBT’ label.
Kate Shellnutt
August 24, 2017 10:20 AM


A venerable Christian ministry based in Fort Lauderdale recently saw its name listed on a CNN map of “all the active hate groups where you live,” as well as in local news reports as the No. 1 hate group in Florida.

D. James Kennedy Ministries shares sermons, devotionals, and religious liberty messages inspired by the late founder of Coral Ridge Presbyterian, a prominent Florida megachurch. In media coverage after Charlottesville, the Christian broadcaster was mapped alongside about 60 “hate groups” in the Sunshine State, using designations from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

“Enough is enough,” said Frank Wright, president of D. James Kennedy Ministries, which filed a lawsuit against the SPLC on Wednesday. The organization also sued GuideStar and AmazonSmile for their use of the SPLC list.

Conservative Christian organizations have challenged the SPLC’s “anti-LGBT” category for years, but Wright’s is the first to take legal action—spurred by the controversial watchdog group’s increasingly vocal activism during Donald Trump’s presidency. The SPLC recently received a prominent boost from Apple, which pledged a $1 million donation and will launch a new feature to allow users to donate directly from iTunes.

The civil rights advocacy organization made a name for itself in the 1970s, providing legal defense for victims of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists. (Wright and other conservative Christian leaders are quick to applaud them for this history.) However, as the SPLC expanded beyond race to other cultural issues like sexuality and immigration, it has also shifted attention toward what it calls the “radical right,” drawing allegations of bias from many conservatives and some on the left as well.

D. James Kennedy Ministries—formerly called Truth in Action—claims that the SPLC falsely labeled it as a hate group with the intention to hurt its reputation and fundraising efforts, according to a 39-page lawsuit filed in federal district court in Alabama (where the SPLC is headquartered).

The suit alleges that the ministry’s inclusion on the list of hate groups amounts to defamation—spreading false, harmful information—as well as a trademark violation, misrepresenting the ministry in order to drum up fundraising support. Wednesday’s filing made the same claims against the charity-research site GuideStar for promoting the SPLC designation, seeking an injunction against further use of the “hate group” label and damages from both organizations.

Remainder of the article here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...outhern-poverty-law-center-splc-hate-map.html

 

[HereIStand]

Good news. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Drick]

About time

 

[St_Worm2]

Ligonier/Renewing Your Mind was dropped suddenly from Apple Apps awhile back because of one of RC's broadcast sermons, which they claimed was anti-gay, so they had to do something along these same lines to get the app reinstated (which they did). I'm not sure it made it all the way to a lawsuit however (I believe they were able to show Apple why it was hardly anti-gay).

All of this is a sad testimony to the times in which we live Fortunately, the Lord does GREAT things during such times/in the face of such difficulties

 

[Rion]

Even the NYT allowed a hit piece on them.

Opinion | Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals?

 

[Cuddles333]

I am already feeling vindicated about this lawsuit because now these fundamentalists will have to go to the scriptures and study each Hebrew and Koine Greek word dealing with the subject. The whole world will see their blindness.

 

[St_Worm2]

I am already feeling vindicated about this lawsuit because now these fundamentalists will have to go to the scriptures and study each Hebrew and Koine Greek word dealing with the subject. The whole world will see their blindness.

I'm confused Please elaborate.

Thanks!

--David

 

[hedrick]

Let's hope the suit fails. We don't need censorship on either side. I don't believe people who oppose gay rights are "hate groups," but prohibiting saying that is a really dangerous precedent for everyone.

 

[St_Worm2]

Getting organizations to admit that their published accusations about others/other organizations are wrong (and that they've lied or attempted to deceive people if that is also true) has nothing to do with censorship Hedrick. Lies and misrepresentations have never been part of "protected" speech because we have a right to know the truth (and we need to tell the truth about others). Getting at the truth is the principle reason we allow for defamation, slander and libel lawsuits.

--David

 

[hedrick]

Getting organizations to admit that their published accusations about someone are wrong (and that they've lied or attempted to deceive people if that is also true) has nothing to do with censorship Hedrick. Lies and misrepresentations have never been part of "protected" speech because we have a right to know the truth (and we need to tell the truth about others). Getting at the truth is the principle reason we allow for defamation, slander and libel lawsuits.

--David

The trial will be interesting. Here's one summary of the SDLC's accusation: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2005/dozen-major-groups-help-drive-religious-right’s-anti-gay-crusade#7. If it's true, this goes beyond simply opposing gay rights, into inflammatory and false accusations. It's a matter of judgement whether to call that hatred, but I think it's sufficiently reasonable that I wouldn't want to see it prohibited.

If they're wrong about what was said, then I agree that it's potentially slander. If they're right, Kennedy risks having the SDLC's accusations proven in court.

I haven't read Sproul's statements, but from what I know of him, I wouldn't expect the kinds of things Kennedy is here accused of saying.

 

[redleghunter]

Let's hope the suit fails. We don't need censorship on either side. I don't believe people who oppose gay rights are "hate groups," but prohibiting saying that is a really dangerous precedent for everyone.

Don't think this is censorship. It involves slander.

How would we like our churches associated with Westboro "Baptist" church just because they claim to be Christian?

If someone lumped our churches with them I'm sure our pastors would consider such slander and bearing false witness.

 

[redleghunter]

I am already feeling vindicated about this lawsuit because now these fundamentalists will have to go to the scriptures and study each Hebrew and Koine Greek word dealing with the subject. The whole world will see their blindness.

I'm also confused by this statement. Perhaps create another thread to present your theory.

 

[redleghunter]

The trial will be interesting. Here's one summary of the SDLC's accusation: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2005/dozen-major-groups-help-drive-religious-right’s-anti-gay-crusade#7.

Yes will be interesting. Considering there was a lot of guilt by tangential association.

Many of these leftist organizations tend to think the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is an actual investigative technique.

 

[St_Worm2]

The trial will be interesting. Here's one summary of the SDLC's accusation: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2005/dozen-major-groups-help-drive-religious-right’s-anti-gay-crusade#7. If it's true, this goes beyond simply opposing gay rights, into inflammatory and false accusations. It's a matter of judgement whether to call that hatred, but I think it's sufficiently reasonable that I wouldn't want to see it prohibited.

If they're wrong about what was said, then I agree that it's potentially slander. If they're right, Kennedy risks having the SDLC's accusations proven in court.

I haven't read Sproul's statements, but from what I know of him, I wouldn't expect the kinds of things Kennedy is here accused of saying.

Agreed, if there is no other side to it, that is. At the moment, it's just a lot of unfounded accusations, nor is there any explanation from Coral Ridge/Dr. Kennedy about why he said what he did/what he really meant (if he did say what they claim he did, that is). I look forward to hearing what the Coral Ridge Ministries has to say about all this.

I'm sure the ministry president, Frank Wright, is well aware of all of the accusations that this CNN-backed law firm has made, yet Coral Ridge is still suing them for libel and defamation. It will be interesting to follow the case and see where/with whom the truth actually lies.

Of course, since most of the law firm's accusations against Coral Ridge Ministries are actually levied against Dr. Kennedy (who went home to be with the Lord 10 years ago this September), this lawsuit may end up going in a very different direction than otherwise expected.

Quite frankly, from what I've heard and read tonight, the SDLC may end up being the organization that's sitting on the hot seat as this thing progresses.

--David

 

[hedrick]

Yes, suing someone for libel does have to do with censorship. The goal of suing someone for libel is to stop them (and dissuade others) from saying what they said. That's censorship.

I haven't found a copy of the suit itself, but I've seen enough references to it to know that it's about more than just the "hate group" label. Since I don't know all that's claimed I don't know how well founded it is. The SPLC may well have made specific statements in its coverage of the group that are wrong. My original statement was about the use of "hate" in referring to people who oppose gay rights and "hate group" when used to describe groups that campaign against gay rights. While I don't think that's entirely fair, I don't think it should expose one to censorship.

 

[St_Worm2]

I'm sorry Hedrick, we will have to agree to disagree about this one. Censorship is defined as: The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly
controversial.

We don't "censor" mistakes/inaccuracies or lies Rather, we sue (when necessary) to get them corrected or retracted (and apologized for, especially when they are intentional and/or have caused harm to the victim).

Yours and His,
David

 

[Bible2+]

St_Worm2 said in post #14:

Of course, since most of the law firm's accusations against Coral Ridge Ministries are actually levied against Dr. Kennedy (who went home to be with the Lord 10 years ago this September) . . .

Was he murdered?

--

Also, sometimes people ask if Christians could be persecuted even by the government in our future simply for asserting from the Bible that homosexual acts are sinful.

The answer would be Yes, for such an assertion could become an illegal act of "hate speech", punishable by fines and imprisonment.

A move toward this point could have even started. For example, not long ago the New York Times (98% of its readers say they never pray) held a forum for evangelicals, the point of which was to basically accuse evangelicals of causing the Orlando, Pulse-nightclub shooting against homosexuals, because of the evangelical teaching against homosexuality, which it's said puts homosexuals "in danger". Of course, that Orlando shooting was done by a Muslim, not a Christian. But in the twisted, Satanic world of "political correctness", no evil can ever be ascribed to Islam (even though Islam, even in its moderate forms, opposes homosexuality no less than evangelical Christianity), whereas any evil whatsoever can be ascribed to evangelical Christianity.

Also, "political correctness" loves to paint any evangelical teaching against homosexuality as "homophobic" or "hateful", as if evangelical Christians are actually fearful (phobic) of homosexuals, or actually hate them, when in fact evangelical Christianity simply states from the Bible itself that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27). It would be like pedophiles saying Christians (or even New York Times readers) are "pedophobic" or "hateful" for being against pedophilia, which pedophiles prefer to call "man-boy love". Or it would be like people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals saying Christians are "beastiphobic" or "hateful" for being against inappropriate behavior with animals, which people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals prefer to call "inter-species love".

So, along with the acceptance of homosexuality, don't be surprised if the unsaved world, in the name of "love", eventually begins to also accept pedophilia and inappropriate behavior with animals, so long as (in the unsaved world's words) "the child or animal involved in each case is okay with the activity, showing no signs of distress, but rather consent, and even pleasure".

And then pedophiles and people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals will walk around with "Love wins" signs at anti-Christian rallies.

 

[St_Worm2]

Was he murdered?

He died at 76 yrs old from complications following a heart attack.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Yes, suing someone for libel does have to do with censorship. The goal of suing someone for libel is to stop them (and dissuade others) from saying what they said. That's censorship.

Would you have a problem with someone distributing a flyer with your name, photo, and the words "child molester" at the top in big bold print (obviously a false accusation)? Let's say they handed them out to everyone in your neighborhood, the stores where you shop, and your place of employment. So now your boss fires you, stores won't sell to you, and your neighbors are holding meetings to see if there's anyway to force you to move.

We have libel, slander, and defamation laws for a reason, to protect you, me, and everyone else.

 

[hedrick]

Would you have a problem with someone distributing a flyer with your name, photo, and the words "child molester" at the top in big bold print (obviously a false accusation)? Let's say they handed them out to everyone in your neighborhood, the stores where you shop, and your place of employment. So now your boss fires you, stores won't sell to you, and your neighbors are holding meetings to see if there's anyway to force you to move.

We have libel, slander, and defamation laws for a reason, to protect you, me, and everyone else.

"Hate" in this context has some gray. If I campaign against giving a group of people legal rights, I wouldn't be shocked if I'm accused of hating the group, nor do I think such an accusation is actionable.

"Child molester" has a number of fairly specific implications about the kinds of things a person has done. If they haven't done them, I think it is actionable.

The SPLC has gone beyond just saying that the ministry has campaigned against gay rights. They accuse them of specific misrepresentations of gays. it should be fairly easy to show if that accusation is true. I agree that if it's not, it's likely actionable.