Gavin McInnes Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

[Abdul Alhazred]

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.

[Abdul Alhazred]

And another thing about the SPLC.

Their architect is guilty of this monstrosity ...

[Doctor X]

This will end badly for him.

--J.D.

[RCC: Act II]

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.

[ed]

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.

[RCC: Act II]

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.

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.

[ed]

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.

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.

[xouper]

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.

[ed]

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

The real thing would be prosecuteable.

[Grammatron]

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.

[Anaxagoras]

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?

[xouper]

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.

[xouper]

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.

[Abdul Alhazred]

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.

[Anaxagoras]

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.

[Grammatron]

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.

[xouper]

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.

[xouper]

The definition require a government actor.

No it doesn't.

[Anaxagoras]

The definition require a government actor.

No it doesn't.

Does too.

[Grammatron]

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.