Gavin McInnes Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 72894
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:36 pm

C'mon ed.

One of the richest men in the world passing information to the FBI and the like is not a problem of "commie fellow travellers".

As for the SPLC, they are just the goyische version of the ADL. :p
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 72894
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:42 pm

And another thing about the SPLC.

Their architect is guilty of this monstrosity ...

Image
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 68755
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by Doctor X » Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:36 pm

This will end badly for him.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!!

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by RCC: Act II » Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:50 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:13 pm
Legally speaking, is there a property owning entity of some sort called "The Proud Boys" that can sue or be sued (viz "corporate personhood")?

Gavin McInnes may be it.
Maybe. Thing is, with discovery the SPLC might unearth something that would make a broader suit possible. I don't get the vibe that the Proud Boys are savvy enough to foresee that danger.

Really, my guess is that the worst thing the SPLC would do is ask for sanctions and attorney fees on the grounds that this lawsuit is frivolous.

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33907
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by ed » Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:10 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:50 pm
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:13 pm
Legally speaking, is there a property owning entity of some sort called "The Proud Boys" that can sue or be sued (viz "corporate personhood")?

Gavin McInnes may be it.
Maybe. Thing is, with discovery the SPLC might unearth something that would make a broader suit possible. I don't get the vibe that the Proud Boys are savvy enough to foresee that danger.

Really, my guess is that the worst thing the SPLC would do is ask for sanctions and attorney fees on the grounds that this lawsuit is frivolous.
Or, perhaps, that the SPLC was paid PRIOR to putting some organization on the list, or paid to not do so. Do you think that the SPLC is above taking a bribe? Why, the next thing will be a suggestion that the Clinton Foundation is being naughty.
:doglaugh:
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by RCC: Act II » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:07 pm

ed wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:10 pm
RCC: Act II wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:50 pm
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:13 pm
Legally speaking, is there a property owning entity of some sort called "The Proud Boys" that can sue or be sued (viz "corporate personhood")?

Gavin McInnes may be it.
Maybe. Thing is, with discovery the SPLC might unearth something that would make a broader suit possible. I don't get the vibe that the Proud Boys are savvy enough to foresee that danger.

Really, my guess is that the worst thing the SPLC would do is ask for sanctions and attorney fees on the grounds that this lawsuit is frivolous.
Or, perhaps, that the SPLC was paid PRIOR to putting some organization on the list, or paid to not do so. Do you think that the SPLC is above taking a bribe? Why, the next thing will be a suggestion that the Clinton Foundation is being naughty.
:doglaugh:

Donating money to a group to get the group to do what the group is supposed to do is called a donation, not a bribe.

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33907
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by ed » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:11 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:07 pm
ed wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:10 pm
RCC: Act II wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:50 pm
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:13 pm
Legally speaking, is there a property owning entity of some sort called "The Proud Boys" that can sue or be sued (viz "corporate personhood")?

Gavin McInnes may be it.
Maybe. Thing is, with discovery the SPLC might unearth something that would make a broader suit possible. I don't get the vibe that the Proud Boys are savvy enough to foresee that danger.

Really, my guess is that the worst thing the SPLC would do is ask for sanctions and attorney fees on the grounds that this lawsuit is frivolous.
Or, perhaps, that the SPLC was paid PRIOR to putting some organization on the list, or paid to not do so. Do you think that the SPLC is above taking a bribe? Why, the next thing will be a suggestion that the Clinton Foundation is being naughty.
:doglaugh:

Donating money to a group to get the group to do what the group is supposed to do is called a donation, not a bribe.
Thank you for your summation for the defense.
In seriousness, there is a hairbreadths difference between bribe and donation. Or Donation and extortion.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 9295
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by xouper » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:34 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:43 pm
Working with social media companies to deplatform hate groups is exactly the sort of thing the SPLC is supposed to be doing. . . . This is 100% legal and above board seeing being in a hate group is in no way a protected class under any applicable non-discrimination legislation.
Deplatforming of this kind may be legal but it is still fascism and un-American. Especially when the new fascist left doesn't deplatform hate groups they agree with.

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33907
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by ed » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:46 pm

"Hate" = something that they disagree with ergo bullshit,

The real thing would be prosecuteable.
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33928
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by Grammatron » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:15 pm

xouper wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:34 pm
Deplatforming of this kind may be legal but it is still fascism and un-American. Especially when the new fascist left doesn't deplatform hate groups they agree with.
:?
I don't see how a private social media company making decisions on who to keep on their platform is a form of fascism.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 22900
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by Anaxagoras » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:31 pm

Grammatron wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:15 pm
xouper wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:34 pm
Deplatforming of this kind may be legal but it is still fascism and un-American. Especially when the new fascist left doesn't deplatform hate groups they agree with.
:?
I don't see how a private social media company making decisions on who to keep on their platform is a form of fascism.
It isn't.

How did the Supreme Court decide that wedding cake case? I believe they ruled in favor of the baker. He doesn't have to bake a cake (decorate a cake to be pedantic) with a message that he doesn't agree with. Conservatives saw this as a victory for religious freedom. Well, if the cake decorator doesn't have to make a message that he doesn't agree with, why should other private companies like massive social media platforms be forced to allow content on their platforms that they don't agree with?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 9295
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by xouper » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:48 pm

Grammatron wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:15 pm
xouper wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:34 pm
Deplatforming of this kind may be legal but it is still fascism and un-American. Especially when the new fascist left doesn't deplatform hate groups they agree with.
:?
I don't see how a private social media company making decisions on who to keep on their platform is a form of fascism.
Before I can answer that, perhaps it would be helpful if we got a semantic issue resolved.

Please explain what definition of fascism you are using. Here's what I am using:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition . . .
In the context I am using it, I am emphasizing the part in yellow, the forceful suppression of opposition thought by political activists, including economic suppression.

When private companies hold themselves out as a public service supposedly available to everyone without discrimination, but refuse service to those political activists they disagree with, that is the very definition of forceful suppression of the opposition.

It is entirely legal, as RCC observed, but is still facism and un-American.

Perhaps the quibble here is about the definition of "fascism".

Perhaps you would like to suggest a different word to describe the un-American behavior by certain social media companies that deplatform political speech they don't like.

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 9295
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by xouper » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:53 pm

Anaxagoras wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:31 pm
Grammatron wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:15 pm
xouper wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:34 pm
Deplatforming of this kind may be legal but it is still fascism and un-American. Especially when the new fascist left doesn't deplatform hate groups they agree with.
:?
I don't see how a private social media company making decisions on who to keep on their platform is a form of fascism.
It isn't.

How did the Supreme Court decide that wedding cake case? I believe they ruled in favor of the baker. He doesn't have to bake a cake (decorate a cake to be pedantic) with a message that he doesn't agree with. Conservatives saw this as a victory for religious freedom. Well, if the cake decorator doesn't have to make a message that he doesn't agree with, why should other private companies like massive social media platforms be forced to allow content on their platforms that they don't agree with?
That is not an accurate interpretation of what the court said. The wedding cake case is not legally equivalent to social media deplatforming of speech they don't like.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 72894
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:15 am

ed wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:11 pm
Thank you for your summation for the defense.
In seriousness, there is a hairbreadths difference between bribe and donation. Or Donation and extortion.
Extortion if they solicited The Proud Boys and didn't get a donation.

A targeted donation to smear a particular outfit?

Plain silly to suppose the SPLC was bribed to do what they do all the time for love. :)

You might not think The Proud Boys are really a "hate group", but they are undeniably the sort of outfit the SPLC more or less automatically lists as a "hate group" without prompting.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 22900
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by Anaxagoras » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:51 am

xouper wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:53 pm
That is not an accurate interpretation of what the court said. The wedding cake case is not legally equivalent to social media deplatforming of speech they don't like.
The priciple is the same. Private business.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33928
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by Grammatron » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:00 am

xouper wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:48 pm
Grammatron wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:15 pm
xouper wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:34 pm
Deplatforming of this kind may be legal but it is still fascism and un-American. Especially when the new fascist left doesn't deplatform hate groups they agree with.
:?
I don't see how a private social media company making decisions on who to keep on their platform is a form of fascism.
Before I can answer that, perhaps it would be helpful if we got a semantic issue resolved.

Please explain what definition of fascism you are using. Here's what I am using:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition . . .
In the context I am using it, I am emphasizing the part in yellow, the forceful suppression of opposition thought by political activists, including economic suppression.

When private companies hold themselves out as a public service supposedly available to everyone without discrimination, but refuse service to those political activists they disagree with, that is the very definition of forceful suppression of the opposition.

It is entirely legal, as RCC observed, but is still facism and un-American.

Perhaps the quibble here is about the definition of "fascism".

Perhaps you would like to suggest a different word to describe the un-American behavior by certain social media companies that deplatform political speech they don't like.
The definition require a government actor.

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 9295
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by xouper » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:19 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:51 am
xouper wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:53 pm
That is not an accurate interpretation of what the court said. The wedding cake case is not legally equivalent to social media deplatforming of speech they don't like.
The priciple is the same. Private business.
The are both private businesses, but the legal principle is unequivocally NOT the same.

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 9295
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by xouper » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:20 am

Grammatron wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:00 am
The definition require a government actor.
No it doesn't.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 22900
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by Anaxagoras » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:23 am

xouper wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:20 am
Grammatron wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:00 am
The definition require a government actor.
No it doesn't.
Does too.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33928
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Proud Boys Founder Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by Grammatron » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:27 am

xouper wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:20 am
Grammatron wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:00 am
The definition require a government actor.
No it doesn't.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition . . .
You better tell Webster to change their wrong definition.