S.P.L.C. – ‘Discredited Left Wing Political Activist Group’

[iluvatar5150]

Holding organizations legally responsible for any action taken by individual members endangers the liberty of all citizens - regardless of who it is done to. I would say the same thing about lawsuits against mosques that were attended by individual Muslims who committed terrorist acts. Not because I have any sympathy for Islam, but because of the dangerous precedent that it would set. Except the precedent was already set by that judgement against UKA back in 1987.

Your position only works if the actions of those members is somehow unrelated to the core tenets of that organization. You're pretending as if terrorism of blacks isn't a fundamental part of Klan ideology and practices. This isn't like going after a mosque based on the actions of a few lone wolves. It's like going after a mob boss based on the actions of his henchmen.

Espousing violence, as long as it is in the abstract, is protected by the First Amendment.

There's nothing abstract about the lynching of Michael Donald or the other violent acts promoted by the klan.

Organizing violence is a crime, which again, is a matter for the police. When Klan members actually break the law, the law can handle them without the SPLC.

Criminal proceedings are to put people in jail. Civil proceedings are, at least in part, to seek restitution. One does not preclude the other. Bernie Madoff went to jail, but still got sued.

There's a better analogy than the Baton Rouge shooting or the gunman at the FRC offices, since they were not directly connected to BLM or SPLC respectively. James Hodgkinson, the shooter of Congressman Scalise, was actually a volunteer for the Bernie Sanders campaign. He was as connected with the Sanders campaign as Michael Donald's killers were with UKA. It is that, not "advocacy of violence" that is the relevant criteria. The legal theory that allowed the civil suit to go before a jury rather than being dismissed was the theory of "agency" that an organization could be held liable for the actions of its members simply because they were members, and that was the precedent the case set. It has a chilling effect on civil liberties, especially since it allowed the SPLC to use state power against organizations that espouse ideas it doesn't like.

You just equated Bernie Sanders with the Klan - as if their words and deeds were equally benign. If Bernie was directing his fanboys to go kill Republicans, then you'd have a point - but he doesn't do anything close to that. The two aren't comparable and your analogy is absurd.

No, this policy doesn't have "a chilling effect on civil liberties", unless you're worried about protecting your right to terrorize other people. The only reason the "agency" theory worked is because the Klan, as an organization, had a long history of directing violence against blacks. The original complaint against the UKA lays out many different examples of this:

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/def...ownloads/case/beulahvunklan_compcomplaint.pdf

A lawsuit filed for the express purpose of bankrupting and organization is simply malicious

Was it malicious to freeze the assets of folks linked to the Taliban?

If not, why was it malicious to bankrupt a terrorist organization that was instrumental in the murders of several people including a bunch of kids at a church?

 

[iluvatar5150]

It boggles my mind that there are folks arguing that the SPLC was somehow malicious for trying to shut down an organization that had spent the better part of three decades terrorizing American citizens.

Where do your loyalties and priorities have to lie for that to be your definition of malice?

 

[Rion]

k

...is that some sort of Neo-Nazi slang?

Now you've literally just linked to your own post where you claim that SoldieroftheKing is supporting the KKK.

Are we supposed to just take this on your word and nothing else, or....?

The site certainly seems to be alt-right leaning. Didn't look enough to see if it was full on White Nationalist or not. It'd be like Iluvatar citing a BLM site.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The site certainly seems to be alt-right leaning. Didn't look enough to see if it was full on White Nationalist or not. It'd be like Iluvatar citing a BLM site.

It doesn't look like it's all white nationalist - there are a lot of piece authored by Pat Buchanan. But a lot of the focus tends to mirror that of Breitbart's, i.e. bad things done by blacks and immigrants, which may appear to be overtly racist when looking at an individual article, but when taken in context, certainly warrants an eyebrow raise. But then there are a couple more choice nuggets like the ones we've been discussing tucked in the mix.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

This isn't like going after a mosque based on the actions of a few lone wolves.

That is exactly what it is like. Under the theory of agency developed during the case in question, there is no reason why a mosque couldn't be sued simply because someone attending committed terrorist acts - if there was an attorney with sufficient resources and the inclination to do so.

You just equated Bernie Sanders with the Klan - as if their words and deeds were equally benign. If Bernie was directing his fanboys to go kill Republicans, then you'd have a point - but he doesn't do anything close to that. The two aren't comparable and your analogy is absurd.

The lawsuit against the UKA did not allege that it directed two of its members to kill Michael Donald, and had there been evidence of this, criminal conspiracy charges would have been filed without any involvement by the SPLC.

No, this policy doesn't have "a chilling effect on civil liberties", unless you're worried about protecting your right to terrorize other people.

If anyone you've associated with has been charged or even accused of a crime, then yes it can endanger your civil liberties, and it is these liberties, not the Klan, that I am defending. It's not about the UKA, it's about the dangerous precedent that the case set for everybody. I can understand how, in emotional response to Michael Donald's murder, that might be overlooked by some, but emotional reactions are no basis for case law. For the safety of us all even unsavory characters must be afforded due process.

The only reason the "agency" theory worked is because the Klan, as an organization, had a long history of directing violence against blacks.

That's demonstratably false, considering that the theory was subsequently used against organizations that had no such history. If you read the article that I linked to, you can't be unaware of that. It cited such cases.

The original complaint against the UKA lays out many different examples of this:

Certainly this was by no means the first time that a member of the UKA had fallen afoul of the law. In those cases the police could and did deal with them. There was no need for anybody to file politically motivated lawsuits. That actually underscores by my point that the SPLC's actions were unprecedented. One can only imagine what would have happened if anybody thought, in the 50's, to sue the Communist Party over the Rosenberg's atomic espionage.

It boggles my mind that there are folks arguing that the SPLC was somehow malicious for trying to shut down an organization that had spent the better part of three decades terrorizing American citizens.

It is malicious to use civil litigation in that manner against anybody. That lawsuit was not to win restitution for Michael Donald's family, it was to shut down an organization that espoused beliefs that the SPLC didn't like. Ergo, it was malicious, and a legal system cannot countenance such a lawsuit if it is to protect the liberty of its citizens.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That is exactly what it is like. Under the theory of agency developed during the case in question, there is no reason why a mosque couldn't be sued simply because someone attending committed terrorist acts - if there was an attorney with sufficient resources and the inclination to do so.

Anybody can be sued for any reason by an attorney with deep pockets. That alone does not substantiate your claim.

The lawsuit against the UKA did not allege that it directed two of its members to kill Michael Donald,

The lawsuit alleged that the killers were acting as agents of the Klan groups, and that the Klan groups had a long history of inciting and supporting racial violence.

Beaulah Mae Donald v. United Klans of America Inc. et al: 1987 - Dictionary definition of Beaulah Mae Donald v. United Klans of America Inc. et al: 1987 | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary

TTo buttress Rowe's claims that the Klan was institutionally violent, Dees called Randy Ward, a former UKA member living in the federal witness protection program. Ward detailed his own violent past and recalled Shelton inspiring Klansmen with his exploits during attacks on civil rights volunteers in the 1960s. Ward also recalled a telephone conversation with Shelton, during which the Imperial Wizard told Ward that Klansmen implicated in shooting incidents would receive legal and financial aid.

(I know, it's encyclopedia.com, but it's the best I can find online right now)

and had there been evidence of this, criminal conspiracy charges would have been filed without any involvement by the SPLC.

The investigators were barely able to prosecute the case at all. The first investigation was almost shuttered without any charges being brought and it wasn't until the feds got involved that anything happened. Even after they brought charges, the civil suit dug up more information that allowed prosecutors to charge more people.

If anyone you've associated with has been charged or even accused of a crime, then yes it can endanger your civil liberties, and it is these liberties, not the Klan, that I am defending. It's not about the UKA, it's about the dangerous precedent that the case set for everybody. I can understand how, in emotional response to Michael Donald's murder, that might be overlooked by some, but emotional reactions are no basis for case law. For the safety of us all even unsavory characters must be afforded due process.

Mine is not solely an emotional reaction - yes, I'm flabbergasted at some of the things posted here, but I'm also reading and analyzing the content of those messages and responding to it.

You said that the SPLC's origins were not laudable, and pointed to their takedown of the klan as evidence. The basis of your argument is that the violent actions of the klansmen are somehow independent from the klan as an organization, with the implication being that the klan as an organization doesn't incite this kind of violence.

That's demonstratably false, considering that the theory was subsequently used against organizations that had no such history.

Which organizations were those?

In the Aryan Nations case, the organization was implicated because the guys who attacked the Keenans were on duty, acting as guards at the time of the attack. (side note: the "elderly man" who owned the farm they seized was the founder of the Aryans and the one who hired those guards)

Wayback Machine

In the Ranch Rescue case, the property was seized from the guy who committed the assault.

In the case against Metzger and the White Aryan Resistance, the SPLC alleged that a couple weeks prior to the murder, Metzger and his group sent recruiters to the murderers' organization to incite violence against blacks, and to instruct them in tactics that closely resembled those used in the murder. Metzger's recruiters held a meeting with the murderers the night before the murder.

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/berhanuvmetzger_amcomplaint.pdf

In the Macedonia Baptist Church case, the SPLC addressed the issue of conspiracy:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/1999/acts-not-words-are-key
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/macedoniavkkk_2complaint.pdf

So, which of these cases involved the SPLC targeting groups that may have espoused unpopular views, but were otherwise innocent of gross negligence or inciting violence?

If you read the article that I linked to, you can't be unaware of that. It cited such cases.

I read the article, and I read most of the articles it linked to, and I read a bunch of other, related articles, including several of the SPLC's original court filings. Much of what I found in the article you provided and elsewhere throughout that site was poorly-supported vitriol that glossed over a number of crucial details in order to push a obvious white supremacist agenda.

It is malicious to use civil litigation in that manner against anybody. That lawsuit was not to win restitution for Michael Donald's family, it was to shut down an organization that espoused beliefs that the SPLC didn't like. Ergo, it was malicious, and a legal system cannot countenance such a lawsuit if it is to protect the liberty of its citizens.

Our legal liberties do not cover inciting violence.

Something else that occurred to me is that part of the reason corporations or organizations of any sort exist as legal constructs is to shield their members or employees from liability should somebody within the organization have an accident, make a mistake, or do something illegal. Obviously, the strength and degree of that shielding varies from one situation to another, but that's the general principle. In most cases, the organization shoulders at least some, if not all, of the responsibility. Your argument, however, would throw that out the window.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Anybody can be sued for any reason by an attorney with deep pockets. That alone does not substantiate your claim.

OK, I'll rephrase my statement. Under the theory of agency developed during the case in question, there is no reason why a mosque couldn't be sued simply because someone attending committed terrorist acts, and the lawsuit could be successful, or at least not dismissed by the court as a matter of law.

The investigators were barely able to prosecute the case at all. The first investigation was almost shuttered without any charges being brought and it wasn't until the feds got involved that anything happened. Even after they brought charges, the civil suit dug up more information that allowed prosecutors to charge more people.

The point is that Michael Donald's killers had already been caught - without any help from the SPLC.

You said that the SPLC's origins were not laudable, and pointed to their takedown of the klan as evidence. The basis of your argument is that the violent actions of the klansmen are somehow independent from the klan as an organization, with the implication being that the klan as an organization doesn't incite this kind of violence.

I used that example because it was the earliest one, which was the one that set precedent.

In the Aryan Nations case, the organization was implicated because the guys who attacked the Keenans were on duty, acting as guards at the time of the attack. (side note: the "elderly man" who owned the farm they seized was the founder of the Aryans and the one who hired those guards)

They were acting outside the scope of guarding the property. Unless they were instructed to shoot at people who came near the property, in would qualify as agency, at least not but for the precedent set by the 1987 lawsuit. It's also worth pointing out that there were no serious injuries in this incident. Now the SPLC were not the first people to file multimillion dollar lawsuits over minor injuries, but that's usually the kind of action we associate with laudable organizations. The aim of the lawsuit, again, was to bankrupt an organization whose political views the SPLC didn't like.

Our legal liberties do not cover inciting violence.

Contrary to widespread belief, there is no "incitement of violence" exception to the First Amendment. Incitement to imminent lawless action yes, but that's a much higher bar to clear...

Something else that occurred to me is that part of the reason corporations or organizations of any sort exist as legal constructs is to shield their members or employees from liability should somebody within the organization have an accident, make a mistake, or do something illegal. Obviously, the strength and degree of that shielding varies from one situation to another, but that's the general principle. In most cases, the organization shoulders at least some, if not all, of the responsibility. Your argument, however, would throw that out the window.

Corporations, yes, but none of these organizations in question were corporations. Organizations only have corporate status after completing an application to the IRS.

 

[iluvatar5150]

OK, I'll rephrase my statement. Under the theory of agency developed during the case in question, there is no reason why a mosque couldn't be sued simply because someone attending committed terrorist acts, and the lawsuit could be successful, or at least not dismissed by the court as a matter of law.

That's still true of any case - anybody remotely related to, say, and industrial accident gets sued.

The point is that Michael Donald's killers had already been caught - without any help from the SPLC.

You said that if there had been any merit to the conspiracy claim, the prosecutors would have brought those charges. I countered by pointing out that they barely managed to bring the murder charges. And again, you're incorrect - the SPLC's work did help the prosecutors being more charges against more people later.

I used that example because it was the earliest one, which was the one that set precedent.

Yes, an origins case would be "the earliest one" - and you were attacking the SPLC's origins as somehow not laudable, because in your opinion, it's wrong to go after an organization that sponsors, supports, and stokes terrorism. By your logic, it's only proper to go after the individual terrorists, leaving the puppetmasters to do whatever it is they do.

They were acting outside the scope of guarding the property. Unless they were instructed to shoot at people who came near the property, in would qualify as agency, at least not but for the precedent set by the 1987 lawsuit.

Oh baloney. If these were on-duty guards at WalMart who decided to chase a couple people down a road for a couple miles, shoot at their car, run them off the road, and threaten to kill them, then WalMart would absolutely be held liable. Heck, I'd let them shoot at me for that kind of payday.

If one of your employees goes off the rails while on the clock, particularly if its partly because you didn't properly train them or set boundaries on their behaviors, then you're going to get absolutely slammed in court, and for good reason.

It's also worth pointing out that there were no serious injuries in this incident.

So what? You don't have to get sent to the hospital for an incident to be traumatizing.

Can I come shoot at your family?

Now the SPLC were not the first people to file multimillion dollar lawsuits over minor injuries, but that's usually the kind of action we associate with laudable organizations. The aim of the lawsuit, again, was to bankrupt an organization whose political views the SPLC didn't like.

Nobody's disputing that they were trying to bankrupt these organizations.

But it is telling that you continue to dismiss the Klan and these other groups as merely organizations "whose political views the SPLC didn't like" - as if their history of terrorism was somehow equivalent to a lobbying for tax loopholes.

Again, the Klan wasn't just saying things. They were doing things and they were motivating others to do things, too.

Corporations, yes, but none of these organizations in question were corporations. Organizations only have corporate status after completing an application to the IRS.

You're wrong, and you apparently didn't bother to read any of the court filings, which list all of the legal entities targeted:

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/macedoniavkkk_2complaint.pdf
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/keenanvaryannations_amcomplaint.pdf

No, not all of them were incorporated, but some were. The lack of incorporation is probably part of why Metzger lost his personal property, rather than just org property.
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/berhanuvmetzger_amcomplaint.pdf

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The lawsuit alleged that the killers were acting as agents of the Klan groups, and that the Klan groups had a long history of inciting and supporting racial violence.

This was a theory of agency that was unprecedented, and would later be used against groups that did not have such a history. Also, most of these incidents cited were were in the 1960's, and no evidence was provided that UKA's leadership had sanctioned them.

"At issue in that trial was the liability of the entire UKA organization for the actions of a few of its members. Had this legal doctrine that organizations are responsible for the acts of their members been established in the 1960s, it would have decimated the early civil rights movement, whose members were occasionally violent, and would have bankrupted groups like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Congress of Racial Equality, both of which this writer belonged to. Even the organized labor movement and the 1960s anti-war movement could have been crippled by lawsuits arising from the occasional violent acts of their members. Suppose a black activist organization was hit with a $7 million judgement because one of its members killed someone in the Watts Riots? This sounds far-fetched, but had the Dees precedent existed then, it probably would have happened.

Laird Wilcox, "Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization"

In the Ranch Rescue case, the property was seized from the guy who committed the assault.

The lawsuit was against the Texas chapter of Ranch Rescue, and this case illustrates my point that what the SPLC can do to white power fringe groups they can do to ordinary citizens protecting their property against trespassers.

In the case against Metzger and the White Aryan Resistance, the SPLC alleged that a couple weeks prior to the murder, Metzger and his group sent recruiters to the murderers' organization to incite violence against blacks, and to instruct them in tactics that closely resembled those used in the murder. Metzger's recruiters held a meeting with the murderers the night before the murder.

None of these actions are in themselves illegal, nor were they connected with the drunken brawl that three of these skinheads got in with the Ethiopian immigrants that left one of those immigrants dead. If you read further, the Wilcox source that I linked to has quite a bit to say about that incident as well.