Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Self-appointed activist organisations are not the best source of a definitive statement as to whether one group or another is a hate group. It should be best left to accountable legislators.

In that scenario one runs the risk of introducing legal consequences to the act of hate speech. As it stands, groups like the SPLC have no real power to cause harm to groups like the AFA. In essence, both are merely acting within the "marketplace of ideas".

One could argue that the SPLC's labelling of such has caused harm to the AFA. If your point was right, then libel cases would never exist.

 Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."

Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.

Okay, so violence is hardly a requirement of hate.

I'm obliged to go back to my earlier example: a group that organizes around hatred against anti-gun activists. No violence. Hate group?

I'd argue no, because you aren't born as an anti-anti-gun activist, it's an active choice, whereas being homosexual isn't.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd argue no, because you aren't born as an anti-anti-gun activist, it's an active choice, whereas being homosexual isn't.

So we're back to protected classes, basically.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."

Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.

Okay, so violence is hardly a requirement of hate.

I'm obliged to go back to my earlier example: a group that organizes around hatred against anti-gun activists. No violence. Hate group?

I'd argue no, because you aren't born as an anti-anti-gun activist, it's an active choice, whereas being homosexual isn't.

Actually I was thanks.

 Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd argue no, because you aren't born as an anti-anti-gun activist, it's an active choice, whereas being homosexual isn't.

So we're back to protected classes, basically.

In my opinion, yes.

 djones520 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Self-appointed activist organisations are not the best source of a definitive statement as to whether one group or another is a hate group. It should be best left to accountable legislators.

In that scenario one runs the risk of introducing legal consequences to the act of hate speech. As it stands, groups like the SPLC have no real power to cause harm to groups like the AFA. In essence, both are merely acting within the "marketplace of ideas".

One could argue that the SPLC's labelling of such has caused harm to the AFA. If your point was right, then libel cases would never exist.

Besides I am looking at this from a UK perspective, and have seen over here that the labeling of a group by an activist group directly leads to sanctioned harm. I don't know if this hold true in the US, the US does protect free speech better than the UK now does, though it wasn't long ago that we had free speech also.
bottom line is that groups labeled hate groups often have a rough time, and the groups doing the labeling are hate groups themselves, only sanctioned ones.

There may not be official sanctions, but if you piss the right group of folks off, harm can be serious. Take a look at the outrage over Chik-Fil-A.

 djones520 wrote:

One could argue that the SPLC's labelling of such has caused harm to the AFA. If your point was right, then libel cases would never exist.

It is quite difficult to prove defamation in the US. So, at the very least, it seems US law agrees with the notion that nongovernmental agencies have no real power to harm by way of speech.

 Orlanth wrote:

bottom line is that groups labeled hate groups often have a rough time, and the groups doing the labeling are hate groups themselves, only sanctioned ones.

Sanctioned by certain people, and not by others. Its a competition, hence the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

One could argue that the SPLC's labelling of such has caused harm to the AFA. If your point was right, then libel cases would never exist.

It is quite difficult to prove defamation in the US. So, at the very least, it seems US law agrees with the notion that nongovernmental agencies have no real power to harm by way of speech.

We'll come back to this when Zimmerman wins his case against NBC.

A friend posted this link, and article
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=15400
With this comment:
In this world of political correctness, I fear that things like this will happen more and more. As we become more and more political we lose sight of common sense and the American way. Perhaps one day, even by serving your country in the armed forces will be seen as being in a "hate group." Freedom of Speech has become closer to "you have freedom of speech, as long as you agree with the government."

Here's my response and by extension my response to any one defending the AFA.

homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews."
– Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis for government and public policy, 2010

"Homosexuality is not only harmful to homosexuals themselves, but also to children and to society."
– Stephen Bennett, AFA writer, 2004

"As with smoking, homosexual behavior's ‘second hand' effects threaten public health….Thus, individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior threaten not only their own lives, but the lives of the general population."
– Gary Glenn, president of Michigan chapter of AFA, 2001

"[T]he homosexual lifestyle is characterized by anonymous sexual encounters and celebration of sexual obsession and perversion unparalleled in any other social group."
– Richard Howe, "Homosexuality in America," AFA publication, 1994

If you want to side with a "religion" that says gak like that about other human beings... be my guest. These are the kind of nutbars who do actively discriminate and incite hatred of people who are just that. People. The guise of religion and a call for horse gak "values" does not make them any more legitimate. Racists during the Civil Rights movement made the same damn speeches, word for word, except the subjects were desegregation, and voting. The revived Klan was a religious organization before it was anything else, their other primary target outside of Blacks? Catholics, Jews. Any one who didn't agree with their point of view.

Should the AFA be silenced? No they should not. They can spew whatever poisonous bile they want to. It's a free society, but we as a society can and should judge them by their words and deeds. That's what's happening here. Don't want to be called a snake? Don't lay down with them and slither.

I also wouldn't link a website that thinks the U.S. was ever anything more then a nation with Christians in it as opposed to a Christian state for anything. The Founding Fathers were mostly deists, and many argued quite strongly for a secular state. To further that evidence our treaty that ended the Barbary wars explicitly states that the United States of America is not a Christian nation. When did we start getting high on Jesus? The same time and place the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and most of the "traditional values" people whine about came from. The 1950s and the red scare, and they were goddamn bs then too.

I cannot tell you how glad I am we don't live in a theocratic state aligned with ANY religion. Historically theocratic nations without fail end poorly for everyone involved. Just like at Saudi Arabia with its religious police and the mass persecution they (being any one in the goddamn kingdom of Saud) face there, muslim or no. One of their princes had the balls to go on international television and say that driving a car is extremely bad for a woman's mental and reproductive health. gak dude you've studied the sand box, you know what goes on over there.

That's the same type of bs these fethers from the AFA spew, and frankly? They can get fethed.

Welcome to America, please keep your hands, arms, legs, moral values and religious beliefs to yourself at all times.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

One could argue that the SPLC's labelling of such has caused harm to the AFA. If your point was right, then libel cases would never exist.

It is quite difficult to prove defamation in the US. So, at the very least, it seems US law agrees with the notion that nongovernmental agencies have no real power to harm by way of speech.

Anyway, defence by speech aiming at a public figure. If that doesn't stick (and I can't see how it wouldn't); defence by fair comment on a subject of public interest.

 djones520 wrote:

We'll come back to this when Zimmerman wins his case against NBC.

Selectively editing an audio recording is not the same thing as attaching a label to a group. One involves the deliberate manipulation of direct evidence, the other is mere characterization based upon direct evidence.

 djones520 wrote:

We'll come back to this when Zimmerman wins his case against NBC.

Again, defence by qualified priviledge.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We'll come back to this when Zimmerman wins his case against NBC.

Again, defence by qualified priviledge.

Yeah, I highly doubt Zimmerman will win the suit.

 dogma wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We'll come back to this when Zimmerman wins his case against NBC.

Again, defence by qualified priviledge.

Yeah, I highly doubt Zimmerman will win the suit.

Short of an e-mail or a memo stating "Yeah, guys, let's paint this dude as a total asshat", I can't see how he'd win. I can't even see how he (or his lawyer) think he'll win.

So, is the SPLC pretty much, to use a popular Bush era term, the "decider" on who is and is not a hate group? The AFA I think qualifies as one, but I squirm somewhat at the thought of a single agency having such power. Being labeled a hate group has pretty severe repercussions in this day and age.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
So, is the SPLC pretty much, to use a popular Bush era term, the "decider" on who is and is not a hate group? The AFA I think qualifies as one, but I squirm somewhat at the thought of a single agency having such power. Being labeled a hate group has pretty severe repercussions in this day and age.

''The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. '' (their website).

Being labelled by them as a hate group shouldn't have any legal repercussion, that is, you won't be put on a governmental watchlist by virtue of that alone. I guess you can think of them as a social policy group/lobby?

It seems it did have repercussions for some soldiers though.

It hasn't had repercussions for any one yet.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
It seems it did have repercussions for some soldiers though.

Well, yeah, but as a result of advocacy, not lobbying leading to government action.

Basically, one military may or may not have refered to them in order to justify putting the AFA in the hate groups. The legal responsability for his statement remains his, and possibly (but probably not) that of the military.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We'll come back to this when Zimmerman wins his case against NBC.

Again, defence by qualified priviledge.

No.

In the Zimmerman case it was intentional misrepresentation. No First Amendment for you.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We'll come back to this when Zimmerman wins his case against NBC.

Again, defence by qualified priviledge.

No.

In the Zimmerman case it was intentional misrepresentation. No First Amendment for you.

How do you prove that, considering that editing content isn't a proof of intent, but a practice inherent with media casting?

They aired it.

The case won't go to trial because the damage award will be huge and open up NBC practices to the public.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
So, is the SPLC pretty much, to use a popular Bush era term, the "decider" on who is and is not a hate group? The AFA I think qualifies as one, but I squirm somewhat at the thought of a single agency having such power. Being labeled a hate group has pretty severe repercussions in this day and age.

''The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. '' (their website).

Being labelled by them as a hate group shouldn't have any legal repercussion, that is, you won't be put on a governmental watchlist by virtue of that alone. I guess you can think of them as a social policy group/lobby?

Uh... some contend that the Southern Poverty Law Center fights poverty and racism in America, many contend that it is engaged in shameless profiteering at the expense of those it is purportedly trying to protect.

The hate 'groups' the SPLC relentlessly raises money to fight are often farcical because, like sex and fear, hate sells.

But that's not the issue... there are many "charities" that operate in such manner.

The issue here is that this instructor, and responsible news media for that matter, need to carefully scrutinize the assertions and accusations made by SPLC. It suggests that the record, motives, and tactics of the organization leveling the charges should not be taken at face value.

 Frazzled wrote:
They aired it.

How does that constitute proof of malicious intent? They could go with ''we cut it that way because we needed the video to fit into the segment''. Hell, they might even be able to go with ''we cut it that way to make sure it was more sensationnal''.


Anyway, given that there was an immediate outcry against the tape, that NBC issued an apology, and that the complete tape was aired shortly after, there would be a good argument for a defence by no actual injury. Then, even if you could prove malicious intent, it wouldn't matter.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They aired it.

How does that constitute proof of malicious intent? They could go with ''we cut it that way because we needed the video to fit into the segment''. Hell, they might even be able to go with ''we cut it that way to make sure it was more sensationnal''.

Put it in front of a jury. The Plaintiff's attorney will eat your face on that.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They aired it.

How does that constitute proof of malicious intent? They could go with ''we cut it that way because we needed the video to fit into the segment''. Hell, they might even be able to go with ''we cut it that way to make sure it was more sensationnal''.

You don't reorder the conversation, reinjecting words into parts of the audio where they weren't there originally, and say that you were just trying to make it fit.

 Frazzled wrote:


Put it in front of a jury. The Plaintiff's attorney will eat your face on that.

I doubt it, and I'm not alone, apparently :

imediaethics.com wrote:However, some legal experts point out to iMediaEthics that even with the evidence presented, it will be difficult, as it is in all libel cases, to prove actual malice.

“The case could turn in Zimmerman’s favor if a whistleblower steps forward to corroborate malicious intent that the complaint alleges,” Alan Behr, an intellectual property lawyer at the Philip Nizer firm wrote in a July 18 email. “If there is an email in the files from a producer or reporter that says something to the effect of, “Let’s get this guy — I simply hate him,’ Zimmerman might be on the road to proving actual malice,” he wrote.

Weaver agrees that libel cases have been hard to win.

“The threat of defamation litigation is really low in the U.S. because in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are going to lose,” he said in a July 20 phone interview.

Weaver pointed out that since the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan Supreme Court case, which established libel law under the First Amendment, libel has been extremely hard to prove.

“You would have to see a complete breakdown of journalistic integrity in order to prevail,” he said.

 djones520 wrote:

You don't reorder the conversation, reinjecting words into parts of the audio where they weren't there originally, and say that you were just trying to make it fit.

Why not? If I need to cut down a conversation, I might also have to alter it's structure in order to make it coherent. And that still doesn't constitute intent. Someone cut out the phone operator asking ''what race is he'' and kept the answer ''he's black''. That doesn't mean he meant to paint Zimmerman as a racist, but that he thought his statement was somehow relevent.

Mind you, I'm sure the effect on the general populace wasthat they thought that he's racist.

 djones520 wrote:

You don't reorder the conversation, reinjecting words into parts of the audio where they weren't there originally, and say that you were just trying to make it fit.

NBC did not reorder the conversation, they omitted part of it. A significant part to be sure, but let us describe their actions fairly.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

You don't reorder the conversation, reinjecting words into parts of the audio where they weren't there originally, and say that you were just trying to make it fit.

NBC did not reorder the conversation, they omitted part of it. A significant part to be sure, but let us describe their actions fairly.

We are.

The jury will decide. NBC will get hammered like Frazzled at a Mexican restaurant. And thats why they'll settle.