Southern Poverty Law Center's Criteria for Naming 'Hate Groups' Subpoenaed

[Origanalist]

March 7, 2014 - 5:13 PM
By Barbara Hollingsworth


(CNSNews.com) -- A local official in Virginia has subpoenaed the Montgomery, Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the SPLC Task Force on Hate in the Public Sphere for the criteria it uses to designate other organizations as “hate groups.”
The subpoenas were filed February 28th in Loudoun County Circuit Court. They request "all written criteria, guidelines, bylaws or rules used by Southern Poverty Law Center to designate organizations or groups as 'hate groups' from the inception of the Southern Poverty Law Center to the present date." (See Delgaudio_Vs-SPLC_Inc-.pdf & Delgaudio Vs. SPLC Taskforce.pdf)

Leesburg, Va. attorney Charles King filed the subpoenas on behalf of four-term incumbent Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling), who is battling an effort to remove him from office under a rarely used Virginia law that allows elected officials to be ousted for “[a] neglect of duty, [b] misuse of office, or [c] incompetence in the performance of duties.”

The designation of Public Advocate of the United States, the conservative 501(c)(4)group Delgaudio runs, as a “hate group” by the SPLC was specifically cited in the complaint against him filed in court:

“The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) charged that Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio heads a gay-bashing ‘hate group’ called ‘Public Advocate’ and the charge is indisputable; Mr. Delgaudio has merged his function as an elected official of this County with his advocacy for this ‘hate group,’ Public Advocate.

“Accordingly, Mr. Delgaudio has neglected his duty to maintain this ‘hate group’ as a separate undertaking from his elected duties as a Supervisor, and thus misused his office in this regard, and recklessly exposed our Board to charges that we endorse intolerance toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons, fairly described as ‘gay bashing’ given Public Advocate’s declared agenda,” the complaint, which was filed on January 27, stated.

SPLC’s website says it “monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public.” Public Advocate is listed on SPLC’s “hate map” as one of 26 groups designated as such in Virginia and is also listed in SPLC’s “Anti- LGBT” category.

"I'm asking for the file on Supervisor Delgaudio and Public Advocate because they've done this to a number of other conservative organizations," King told CNSNews.com. "He doesn't do anything other than advocate that people write or call their congressmen, using skits, petition drives, rallies and protests. This is all First Amendment stuff.”

continued....

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/southern-poverty-law-centers-criteria-naming-hate-groups#sthash.EfLB2uSI.dpuf

[oyarde]

Good.

[oyarde]

Now they can say why they hate me :)

[kathy88]

It's about time someone called them on their shit. Hope more follow suit, file a huge class action and bankrupt the mother fuckers.

[donnay]

I hope this exposing them! Someone has to shine a light on these cockroaches!

[Warlord]

GOOD!

[Origanalist]

It's about time someone called them on their shit. Hope more follow suit, file a huge class action and bankrupt the mother fuckers.

Maybe they finally have passed some kind of Rubicon, it would be outstanding to see them go down in a great wall of smoldering flame in the courts by the very people they target with their aggression.

[pcosmar]

:D

small hope,, but a big grin.

[pcosmar]

Maybe they finally have passed some kind of Rubicon, it would be outstanding to see them go down in a great wall of smoldering flame in the courts by the very people they target with their aggression.

It would be nice to have even the memory of them wiped from existence,, but much of the damage has been done.

Still, ,will be good to see then squirm in the hot seat.

[tod evans]

Hey Morris;

http://www.twowheelforum.com/images/smilies/hang.gif Get a rope! :mad:

[TonySutton]

This is interesting from so many angles *sits and munches popcorn*

[Origanalist]

It would be nice to have even the memory of them wiped from existence,, but much of the damage has been done.

Still, ,will be good to see then squirm in the hot seat.

Considering how much influence they have with the government including police and other agencies the damage indeed runs deep.

[Peace&Freedom]

Considering how much influence they have with the government including police and other agencies the damage indeed runs deep.

SPLC may have so much "influence" because they are a government front group. Wouldn't it be funny if among the 'criteria' documents that are submitted under the subpeona turns out to be correspondence from a government agency, tell them to "go after this group" now?

[kathy88]

SPLC may have so much "influence" because they are a government front group. Wouldn't it be funny if among the 'criteria' documents that are submitted under the subpeona turns out to be correspondence from a government agency, tell them to "go after this group" now?

Maybe Snowden can save us all some time and produce these......

[PRB]

so much for free speech and "they're connected and conspiring with the gubmint"

But I'm surprised they need to be asked with force, one would think a group like them has no problem admitting/bragging how subjective their criteria is.

[acptulsa]

so much for free speech and "they're connected and conspiring with the gubmint"

But I'm surprised they need to be asked with force, one would think a group like them has no problem admitting/bragging how subjective their criteria is.

You do realize, do you not, that the federal government is not 'a local official in Virginia'?

You do realize, do you not, that even someone as charismatic and arrogant as Morris Dees realizes that one must do more to convince people he stands on the moral high ground than say, 'trust me'?

[NativeOne]

http://i.imgur.com/agJIP.gif

[PRB]

You do realize, do you not, that the federal government is not 'a local official in Virginia'?


I realize that, but I'm not sure conspiracy theorists do.



You do realize, do you not, that even someone as charismatic and arrogant as Morris Dees realizes that one must do more to convince people he stands on the moral high ground than say, 'trust me'?

No, I do not, since nobody is forced to listen to them.

[Origanalist]

I realize that, but I'm not sure conspiracy theorists do.



No, I do not, since nobody is forced to listen to them.

Not true.

[Paulbot99]

The SPLC is the biggest hate group in the country.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I think people are realizing their fraud, my parents stopped donating to them years ago.

[TaftFan]

Delgaudio was closely involved in the Stockman Senate campaign.

[Acala]

My guess is that the subpoena will be quashed (love that word, by the way) or ignored. I have not done the research but Virginia courts probably do not have jurisdiction to issue subpoenas in Alabama. They would need to get an Alabama court to issue it and that can be complicated.

[Origanalist]

My guess is that the subpoena will be quashed (love that word, by the way) or ignored. I have not done the research but Virginia courts probably do not have jurisdiction to issue subpoenas in Alabama. They would need to get an Alabama court to issue it and that can be complicated.

That doesn't seem quite right. The SPLC can come in and make charges against him but he can't defend against them because they're from Alabama?

[PRB]

Not true.

I'm listening

[PRB]

That doesn't seem quite right. The SPLC can come in and make charges against him but he can't defend against them because they're from Alabama?

Come where and make what charges?

[PRB]

The SPLC is the biggest hate group in the country.

Can you reveal your criteria for saying so? Or do I need to subpoena it :P

[tod evans]

I'm listening

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432054-SPLC-writing-DOD-policy-another-incident&highlight=SPLC+policy

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?430499-SPLC-writing-DOD-policy-now&highlight=SPLC+policy

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425700-SPLC-Christians-are-quot-extremists-quot&highlight=SPLC+policy

[tod evans]

////

[HOLLYWOOD]

SPLC'S Cultural Marxist game plan: Do everything in their power to divide the people, group/catalog them by their differences, then turn all upon each other, so to keep the masses weak and preoccupied. Ron Paul did get the people together in 2008, reached across party lines; Cindy McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Ralph Nader, & Bob Barr(jackass troll) united, even though each represented difference political ideologic parties.


"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain

[Paulbot99]

Can you reveal your criteria for saying so? Or do I need to subpoena it :P

Just watch how they operate. It resembles a government agency.

[pcosmar]

I'm listening

I doubt that.

[phill4paul]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432054-SPLC-writing-DOD-policy-another-incident&highlight=SPLC+policy

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?430499-SPLC-writing-DOD-policy-now&highlight=SPLC+policy

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425700-SPLC-Christians-are-quot-extremists-quot&highlight=SPLC+policy

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

[donnay]

I realize that, but I'm not sure conspiracy theorists do.



No, I do not, since nobody is forced to listen to them.



A good example on an organization making it easier for fusion centers to prove their false worth is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which — presumably bored with, or perhaps bankrupt of race-baiting ideas — has squarely focused its accusations of hate on Americans who would prefer a version of America with a smaller government.

Hearkening back to its roots and blaming the Nation’s decision to elect and re-elect a black President for perceived growth in the number of “conspiracy-minded antigovernment ‘Patriot’ groups” in recent years, the SPLC breathlessly exclaimed with the release of its latest “Intelligence Report”:


Now, it seems likely that the radical right’s growth will continue. In 2012, before Obama’s re-election and the Newtown, Conn., massacre, the rate of Patriot growth had slackened somewhat, although it remained significant. Anger over the idea of four more years under a black, Democratic president — and, even more explosively, the same kinds of gun control efforts that fueled the militia movement of the 1990s — seems already to be fomenting another Patriot spurt.

Even before the election last year, self-described Patriots sounded ready for action. “Our Federal Government is just a tool of International Socialism now, operating under UN Agendas not our American agenda,” the United States Patriots Union wrote last year in a letter “sent to ALL conservative state legislators, all states.” This means that freedom and liberty must be defended by the states under their Constitutional Balance of Power, or we are headed to Civil War wherein the people will have no choice but to take matters into their own hands.

In its effort of essentializing that all small government advocates or persons who proudly refer to themselves as patriots are terroristic in nature, SPLC and those who accept its ideology eagerly create an entire class of unwitting homegrown terrorist.

As previously noted by Personal Liberty, SPLC counts the following among potential small government troublemakers, people who it lists alongside the likes of white supremacists and neo-Nazis:

◾Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
◾Representative Trey Radel (R-Fla.).
◾State lawmakers in Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee who proposed laws that sought to prevent Federal gun control from applying to their States.
◾Sheriff Richard Mack.
◾FOX News Radio host Todd Starnes.
◾ConservativeDaily.com’s Tony Adkins.
◾Chuck Baldwin, a Montana-based Patriot leader long associated with the Constitution Party.
◾The Oath Keepers.

This author would be willing to bet that he and many of you also fit the bill to be grouped alongside SPLC’s list of hysterical small-government advocates.

For people like those at the SPLC and the Nation’s fusion centers, it doesn’t matter that Americans have the Constitutionally protected right to speak out against what they perceive to be government’s shortcomings and abuses. The name of the game for them is remaining relevant. That is to say, if SPLC actually focused on fighting racism and fusion centers focused on tracking legitimate terror threats (which would likely get them in trouble with SPLC for profiling), both enterprises would have little with which to busy themselves.

It is far easier for the two to attack the millions of Americans cognizant of and angry about too big, too wasteful and woefully inept bureaucracy in America. The aforementioned Senate report on fusion centers notes that they have gone so far as to collect information on individuals who placed political stickers in public bathrooms or participated in protests against government actions. And while the information may sit and collect dust forever, precedents set throughout American history (Alien and Sedition acts, Japanese internment) make it frighteningly possible that it could be put to a more sinister use.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/02/fusion-centers-collecting-information-about-possibly-problematic-americans/

[Acala]

That doesn't seem quite right. The SPLC can come in and make charges against him but he can't defend against them because they're from Alabama?

I think all they did was put the group on their list. They didn't avail themselves of the court in Virginia. If they had taken some legal action in Virginia then they would probably be subject to subpoena directly by a Virginia court. Or if the guy sued them in Virginia for defamation and the court took personal jurisdiction based on the defamation happening in Virginia, then he could probably subpoena them, but still have to go through an Alabama court.

Issues of jursidiction across state lines are a nightmare.

[pcosmar]

I think all they did was put the group on their list. They didn't avail themselves of the court in Virginia. If they had taken some legal action in Virginia then they would probably be subject to subpoena directly by a Virginia court. Or if the guy sued them in Virginia for defamation and the court took personal jurisdiction based on the defamation happening in Virginia, then he could probably subpoena them, but still have to go through an Alabama court.

Issues of jursidiction across state lines are a nightmare.

SPLC is a Federal agency..
despite any claims to the contrary.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/08/its-official-southern-poverty-law-center-is-now-part-of-dhs/

It is part of DHS.

[GunnyFreedom]

It would be nice to have even the memory of them wiped from existence,, but much of the damage has been done.

Still, ,will be good to see then squirm in the hot seat.

No, not wiped from existence, tossed into a black hole. Like Eugene McCarthy. Let SPLC become a verb, where to SPLC someone is akin to McCarthyism. Let memory and history record forever that what the SPLC does now is unequivocable evil.

[Origanalist]

http://www.examiner.com/article/army-training-document-cites-splc-as-trusted-source-to-define-extremism

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/dod-continue-using-liberal-southern-poverty-law-center-training-resource

http://www.osce.org/odihr/103555


As one of the nation’s leading providers of anti-bias education resources, we reach hundreds of thousands of educators and millions of students annually through our award-winning Teaching Tolerance magazine, multimedia teaching kits, online curricula, professional development resources and special projects like Mix It Up at Lunch Day. These materials are provided to educators at no cost.






Because the Southern Poverty Law Center has direct ties to the Department of Homeland Security, helping to write official DHS policy that may affect my life, my freedom, my ability to travel and my ability to speak out. - See more at: http://americanpolicy.org/2011/03/16/the-threat-to-freedom-the-southern-poverty-law-center-and-the-department-of-homeland-security/#sthash.96D6eoym.dpuf

[69360]

Excellent. It's about time they got called out on their BS.

[Origanalist]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

I'll get that for you. My internet fu is severely lacking today. Thanks Tod

[tod evans]

Just in case I wasn't completely clear earlier;

Fuck Morris Dees with a hot poker!

[Origanalist]

Come where and make what charges?

Wut?

[Pericles]

This is only of interest to document that the SPLC makes up this shit.

[donnay]

Just in case I wasn't completely clear earlier;

Fuck Morris Dees with a hot poker!

He would probably like it. He is so perverted.

[phill4paul]

"Hello, this is Morris."
"Heya Morris can you do me a solid? We have a group that's getting uppity and we'd like you to catagorize them as a "hate group."
"I assume you remember the conditions of our last conversation?"
"Already wired to your account."
"No problem. Up for some golf next time your in town?"
"Sounds great. Glad you are enjoying that country club membership I scored for you."
"Next time."
"Later bud."

[GunnyFreedom]

This is only of interest to document that the SPLC makes up this shit.

I would have also asked for minutes and recordings of any committee meetings his org was brought up, since I do not believe the SPLC actually has much in the way of written guidelines. I imagine that (a) select committee(s), or (even more likely) select leadership simply decide who and what to target by fiat, and then that person, concept, or organization is combed through to build the selected narrative presented for the attacks.

He is likely to get neither. Rationale at a propaganda shop is just not naturally well documented. Even if the SPLC wanted to comply, they probably have almost nothing to provide in response...or worse they will produce guidelines issued by fedgov and demonstrate their fulfillment of those guidelines, and Delgaudio will be shot it he foot. I am also guessing that Delgaudo and his Atty know this, and that they are making the demand loudly and publicly just so they can wiggle their fingers and point when the SPLC has nothing but dead air and equivocation to provide. I'm not complaining here, anybody that can land a blow on these wicked zealots is a hero IMHO. I'll ride shotgun and help count coup. :)

[Acala]

SPLC is a Federal agency..
despite any claims to the contrary.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/08/its-official-southern-poverty-law-center-is-now-part-of-dhs/

It is part of DHS.

You could certainly make that argument, but you would lose. If you won the argument you would not need a subpoena, just a FOIA request.

[acptulsa]

You could certainly make that argument, but you would lose. If you won the argument you would not need a subpoena, just a FOIA request.

Privatization is a wonderful thing. Can you get Blackwater's records via a FOIA request? Does that fact cut the number of taxpayer dollars that flow into Blackwater's coffers?

[GunnyFreedom]

You could certainly make that argument, but you would lose. If you won the argument you would not need a subpoena, just a FOIA request.

More accurately is is a private partner of the federal government, exchanging guidelines and policies for the suppression of alleged hate groups. Fedgov unofficially tells the SPLC who and what and what kinds of things they want to demonize, and the SPLC then narrows or broadens that focus creates a narrative justifying official oppression, and returns guidelines and policy to the Fedgov for the Congress and the regulators to implement.

[GunnyFreedom]

Privatization is a wonderful thing. Can you get Blackwater's records via a FOIA request? Does that fact cut the number of taxpayer dollars that flow into Blackwater's coffers?

Congress simply outsourcing the things they are not Constitutionally allowed to do does not make those actions of Congress Constitutional or legal. "We didn't build and operate the gas chambers Judge, we just paid someone else to do all that. We are innocent!" lol

[PRB]

Just watch how they operate. It resembles a government agency.

government agency = hate group?

[acptulsa]

government agency = hate group?

Only if SLPC = hate group. Where did this massive fail in logic come from?

If you're going to put words in people's mouths, make them believable.

I say that person acts like a cat and you say so that person is a dog? Say what? Are you sure you couldn't come up with a sillier assed thing to say?

[Origanalist]

I'm not complaining here, anybody that can land a blow on these wicked zealots is a hero IMHO. I'll ride shotgun and help count coup. :)

That's pretty much where I'm at too.

[PRB]

Only if SLPC = hate group. Where did this massive fail in logic come from?

If you're going to put words in people's mouths, make them believable.

I say that person acts like a cat and you say so that person is a dog? Say what? Are you sure you couldn't come up with a sillier assed thing to say?

I asked "What criteria makes them a hate group"

and he answered "Just watch how they operate. It resembles a government agency."

How exactly should I have understood his response?

[pcosmar]

Even if the SPLC wanted to comply, they probably have almost nothing to provide in response...or worse they will produce guidelines issued by fedgov and demonstrate their fulfillment of those guidelines,

The guidelines of the Fedgov are written by the SPLC.

[GunnyFreedom]

The guidelines of the Fedgov are written by the SPLC.

Yes, in large part based on guidelines that the Fedgov gives to the SPLC regarding the kinds of guidelines they want the SPLC to write for the Fedgov. :)

[PRB]

Even if the SPLC wanted to comply, they probably have almost nothing to provide in response...or worse they will produce guidelines issued by fedgov and demonstrate their fulfillment of those guidelines, and Delgaudio will be shot it he foot.

FBI's definition seems to be

Hate Group – an organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility and malice against persons belonging to a different race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity or national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization.

[pcosmar]

I asked "What criteria makes them a hate group"


Where did the term/phrase "hate Group" come from?

Goggle the term/phrase.

From wiki and others,, you will find it tied to the SPLC. They invented it. Promoted it. They define it. They teach it to Law Enforcement.

You are probably not old enough to remember a time when it did not exist.

[GunnyFreedom]

FBI's definition seems to be

Hate Group – an organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility and malice against persons belonging to a different race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity or national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization.

^^ Sounds like the SPLC.

[PRB]

You are probably not old enough to remember a time when it did not exist.

Meaning, racist groups were not condemned? Anti-gay people had nothing to fear?

[PRB]

^^ Sounds like the SPLC.

Do you have a better definition?

[PRB]

this is straight from Delgaudio's page

In recent years, our efforts have focused on supporting:
A federal traditional marriage (man-woman) amendment to the Constitution to defend tradional marriage from assaults from those who claim to promote "same sex marriage";
School prayer and the freedom of religious expression in public places;
Faith-based and community initiatives;
Pro-life legislation;
The promotion and protection of the Boy Scouts, organized sports and other activities that reinforce morality, accountability and leadership in our youth;
Tax cuts and the exposure of wasteful "pork barrel" spending for the benefit of liberal special interests;
Equality under the law, regardless of one's sexual orientation.
Supporting these important efforts also means opposing those who stand steadfastly against them. Through public demonstrations, news conferences, media campaigns, petition drives and face-to-face confrontations with leading liberal politicians.

Public Advocate offers strong and vocal opposition to:
Same sex marriage and the furtherance of so-called "Gay Rights";
The National Endowment of the Arts or taxpayer supported art and the federal funding and endorsement of pornography and obscenity as legitimate forms of art from any agency;
The mainstream media's promotion and glorification of drug abuse, teenage sex, gangs, atheism, homosexuality and other immoral behavior and beliefs;
The passage of hate crimes and thought control legislation that creates inequality in our state and federal legal systems and singles out Christians or moral thinking people for persecution, fines, and harrassment by the government at any level;
"Pro-choice" or abortion strengthening legislation that upholds or expands the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973;
The creation of special classes of Americans at the expense of the traditional American family.


does this qualify as "an organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility and malice against persons belonging to a different sexual orientation which differs from that of the members of the organization."?

[GunnyFreedom]

Do you have a better definition?

I think the one which demonstrates the SPLC to be a hate group is adequate, why?

[pcosmar]

^^ Sounds like the SPLC.


So did the MIAC Report,, and other similar Fusion center materials.

And the source of those was the SPLC.

[PRB]

I think the one which demonstrates the SPLC to be a hate group is adequate, why?

So your goal is to demonize SPLC, rather than fairly assess the groups which are victimized by SPLC's definition?
What is an example of a group which you believe SHOULD be a hate group but isn't?
What is an example of a group that shouldn't, but is classified by FBI or SPLC?

[PRB]

So did the MIAC Report,, and other similar Fusion center materials.

And the source of those was the SPLC.

MIAC report does not mention the word hate group, they identify Militia groups and groups which explicitly and proudly proclaim to be anti-government. What of the MIAC is inaccurate or unfair?

[GunnyFreedom]

So your goal is to demonize SPLC, rather than fairly assess the groups which are victimized by SPLC's definition?
What is an example of a group which you believe SHOULD be a hate group but isn't?
What is an example of a group that shouldn't, but is classified by FBI or SPLC?

You seem awfully hot and bothered to defend the SPLC. I say they are evil enough as to be self-evident under both their own and federal guidelines, and now you demand that I bring up and cite random cases of injustice to demonstrate their hypocrisy? Considering the littany if citations already existing in this thread, I suspect your demand is not sincere, but smells kinda shilly. The SPLC is a hate group and all they produce is hate propaganda. If that is not self evident to someone, then they may need an encephalogram to check for traumatic brain injury or brain death.

[pcosmar]

MIAC report does not mention the word hate group, they identify Militia groups and groups which explicitly and proudly proclaim to be anti-government. What of the MIAC is inaccurate or unfair?

BULLSHIT.

RON PAUL was specifically mentioned. One of the militia Badges was from the Hutaree. (later arrested in a massive show of force,, and much later still acquitted)

the entire MIAC Report was a complete load of shit.

Read it. Then read it again..
It was a huge embarrassment to the State of Missouri and they pulled it.

It was complete and total bullshit..from the very first line.
http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf

The Militia Movement began in the 1980s and reached it's peak in 1996.

Bullshit

[PRB]

You seem awfully hot and bothered to defend the SPLC. I say they are evil enough as to be self-evident under both their own and federal guidelines


I cited the FBI definition. So explain to me, who are they hostile towards based on race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, disability...?



, and now you demand that I bring up and cite random cases of injustice to demonstrate their hypocrisy?


No, I just want to understand what definition you use which you think SPLC qualifies for, or what you recommend as a better definition, or what group(s) you believe are unfairly classified.



Considering the littany if citations already existing in this thread, I suspect your demand is not sincere, but smells kinda shilly. The SPLC is a hate group and all they produce is hate propaganda. If that is not self evident to someone, then they may need an encephalogram to check for traumatic brain injury or brain death.

oh yes, if I don't agree with you, my brain isn't working, namecalling always wins an argument. I should've used that.

[PRB]

BULLSHIT.

RON PAUL was specifically mentioned.


Who said Ron Paul wasn't mentioned?



One of the militia Badges was from the Hutaree. (later arrested in a massive show of force,, and much later still acquitted)


And your point is what? that Hutaree is a good group?



the entire MIAC Report was a complete load of shit.

Read it. Then read it again..
It was a huge embarrassment to the State of Missouri and they pulled it.

meaning everybody mentioned in the report are good guys? or what?

[pcosmar]

Anyone got a better link to the FPIAC Report??
All I have is my photos.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3436/3378748321_3516dc7de0_o.jpg

[pcosmar]

And your point is what? that Hutaree is a good group?


Yes they were/are. and they are also a small local militia (not multi state).

They were innocent folks that were jailed over 2 years after a Massive Raid (though they were all unarmed at a funeral for a friend)

And they were acquitted after a $10 million prosecution based on NO Evidence at all.

[PRB]

Yes they were/are. and they are also s small local militia (not multi state).

They were innocent folks that were jailed over 2 years after a Massive Raid (though they were all unarmed at a funeral for a friend)

And they were acquitted after a $10 million prosecution based on NO Evidence at all.

thanks, that's actually the answer I was looking for. Did you know these people?

[mad cow]

So your goal is to demonize SPLC, rather than fairly assess the groups which are victimized by SPLC's definition?
What is an example of a group which you believe SHOULD be a hate group but isn't?
What is an example of a group that shouldn't, but is classified by FBI or SPLC?

No group should be classified as a hate group.Hate crime is a thought crime.There should be no thought crime,I don't care if somebody that commits a crime of force,theft,fraud or fails to live up to the conditions of a contract loves me or hates me or is totally indifferent.

I don't care if somebody that doesn't do any of this loves me or hates me or is totally indifferent as long as they leave me alone.

[PRB]

No group should be classified as a hate group.


Ok, fair enough. So racist groups and anti-gay groups have nothing in common, or what would you call them?



Hate crime is a thought crime.


“criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

While on the surface, this seems like it's punishing a person extracurricularly based on hate, the point actually is on the fact that absence the hate, the crime could've been prevented (whereas crimes with no hatred or motivation can't be prevented)



There should be no thought crime,I don't care if somebody that commits a crime of force,theft,fraud or fails to live up to the conditions of a contract loves me or hates me or is totally indifferent.

I don't care if somebody that doesn't do any of this loves me or hates me or is totally indifferent as long as they leave me alone.

I get that you don't care, but would you care if one lead to another and one preventable could have prevented the ultimate result?

[pcosmar]

thanks, that's actually the answer I was looking for. Did you know these people?

I followed the case, from the initial raid. Was in contact with Militia folks that got an alert.

The raid was intended to provoke a response from others,, The Hutaree were set up and the arrest arranged by the Fed Informer.
They were known to be unarmed at the time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRwYRqiVGCo

[mad cow]

Ok, fair enough. So racist groups and anti-gay groups have nothing in common, or what would you call them?




“criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

While on the surface, this seems like it's punishing a person extracurricularly based on hate, the point actually is on the fact that absence the hate, the crime could've been prevented (whereas crimes with no hatred or motivation can't be prevented)



I get that you don't care, but would you care if one lead to another and one preventable could have prevented the ultimate result?


I don't know how to do that thing where you separate somebody's post into individual sentences,but as to your first sentence,I wouldn't call them criminals.

#2 “criminal offense against a person or property"Is a crime regardless of the thought process that did or didn't go into it,as I stated.

Sentences #3 and #4 sound like they came straight out of the movie Minority Report.

[PRB]

[/B]

I don't know how to do that thing where you separate somebody's post into individual sentences,but as to your first sentence,I wouldn't call them criminals.

#2 “criminal offense against a person or property"Is a crime regardless of the thought process that did or didn't go into it,as I stated.

Sentences #3 and #4 sound like they came straight out of the movie Minority Report.

Wrong, criminal offense requires intent (with exceptions to strict liability offenses), which is why recklessness is punished less than intentional crimes, which is why if you can't prove a person intended to do something, it's most likely he can get off with "accidental". Thought process matters a lot in criminal law.

[pcosmar]

Thought process matters a lot in criminal law.

So you are in favor of prosecuting thought? or Thought Crimes?

[mad cow]

So are you now saying Criminal offenses against persons or property are not crimes but somehow thought crimes are? :confused:

[PRB]

So you are in favor of prosecuting thought? or Thought Crimes?

More like, I'm in favor of punishing only people who can be proven to intentionally commit a crime, you ARE aware that prosecution requires proving intent, otherwise it's just an accident, right? What you're saying seems to be, you're in favor of punishing intentional acts the same way as accidental acts.

[PRB]

So are you now saying Criminal offenses against persons or property are not crimes but somehow thought crimes are? :confused:

no idea how you got that, but no.

[mad cow]

More like, I'm in favor of punishing only people who can be proven to intentionally commit a crime, you ARE aware that prosecution requires proving intent, otherwise it's just an accident, right? What you're saying seems to be, you're in favor of punishing intentional acts the same way as accidental acts.

That's what the Criminal in "Criminal offenses against persons or property" is all about.

Ask me my opinion of Accidental and you would get a different answer.

EDIT:
Do you think people should be prosecuted for accidental Thought Crimes?

[PRB]

That's what the Criminal in "Criminal offenses against persons or property" is all about.

Ask me my opinion of Accidental and you would get a different answer.

EDIT:
Do you think people should be prosecuted for accidental Thought Crimes?

I don't think people should be punished for accidental anything.

What is your definition of "criminal offenses against persons or property"? does it or does it not require intent?

If accidental would be a different answer, then by definition accidental is not criminal, am I missing something?

[pcosmar]

"criminal offenses against persons or property"? does it or does it not require intent?

Criminal intent,,yes.
The reason for that criminal intent (ie,hate) are irrelevant.

If a person is violently assaulted, ,it is a crime. Any reason (money, anger, hate etc) are irrelevant.


am I missing something?
I am convinced of it.

One day you are defending and promoting the Global Warming scam and now rising in defense of the SPLC.

[pcosmar]

I don't think people should be punished for accidental anything.


Manslaughter should not be punished?

What about property damage or injury?

Someone drives into a building injuring the occupants and should not be prosecuted?

[mad cow]

People should be prosecuted for crimes no matter their thought process.

People should not be prosecuted for accidents no matter their thought process.

People should never be prosecuted for what they think.

[PRB]

People should be prosecuted for crimes no matter their thought process.


Define crime



People should not be prosecuted for accidents no matter their thought process.


Define accident



People should never be prosecuted for what they think.
Agreed

[PRB]

Manslaughter should not be punished?

What about property damage or injury?

Someone drives into a building injuring the occupants and should not be prosecuted?

Not unless you can prove he intended to do it.

This is why George Zimmerman is free, you can't prove he intended to kill Trayvon.

If you want to punish people without raising the burden of proof on prosecution, you're advocating for the state rather than a jury of peers. There's a word for people who want easy prosecution on facts alone, rather than allowing jurors to decide whether a person is guilty.

[mad cow]

Define crime



Define accident


Agreed

I could ask you to define every word you have used in this thread but where would that get us?

If you agree that people should never be prosecuted for what they think,how can you defend hate crimes?

Hate is nothing but an opinion.Should people be prosecuted for their opinions?

[osan]

Interesting, but it raises a question: how does anyone know whether all the docs or even any docs will be "right"?

Looking at it from their perspective, I get a subpoena, I say I will need time to gather everything. In that time, if I knew the documents in question were to be damaging, I would probably get rid of some (or just deny they exist) and doctor the rest to mitigate any damage that might result.

If I had any brains at all, no such standards would ever be committed to paper. When asked how such organizations are rated, I would respond with something along the lines of "our people are experts who know the relevant issues and work from their endless experience and first-hand knowledge of these affairs and organizations. We do not employ people who need lists of criteria, but only those who know what they are doing."

What is anyone going to say to that? Whatever the angle of attack, the shrewd jerkoff is going to have a plausible response - probably one that is strongly so.

So again I reiterate: how would anyone know whether the docs produced were complete and true? An organization like SPLC could not be trusted to tell you the color of the sky, much less to produce that which is legitimately demanded of them.

Thoughts?

[PRB]

I could ask you to define every word you have used in this thread but where would that get us?


I'll tell you what that gets us :

Crime : an act of harm to person or property which one has intended to do
Accident : an act of harm to person or property which one has NOT intended to do



If you agree that people should never be prosecuted for what they think,how can you defend hate crimes?


Because hate crimes do not punish the thought, they punish the crime. it specifically punishes the crime when intent is proven and it works under the assumption that lacking such intent, the crime could have been prevented.



Hate is nothing but an opinion.Should people be prosecuted for their opinions?

No.

[PRB]

Interesting, but it raises a question: how does anyone know whether all the docs or even any docs will be "right"?

Looking at it from their perspective, I get a subpoena, I say I will need time to gather everything. In that time, if I knew the documents in question were to be damaging, I would probably get rid of some (or just deny they exist) and doctor the rest to mitigate any damage that might result.


If you do not produce accurate evidence, it's called contempt of court. Good luck with that.

[mad cow]

Because hate crimes do not punish the thought, they punish the crime.

Hogwash,they punish the thought.Should a black man who murders a black man or a gay man who murders a gay man,all else being equal,get a lesser sentence than a black man who murders a white man or a gay man who murders a straight man?

[PRB]

Hogwash,they punish the thought.


If they punished the thought, they wouldn't need the action.



Should a black man who murders a black man or a gay man who murders a gay man,all else being equal,get a lesser sentence than a black man who murders a white man or a gay man who murders a straight man?

No. Not even hate crime advocates say that. You may occasionally hear extreme liberal idiots who think the mere fact the victim is a minority makes something a hate crime, but that's not the case, hate crime is a specific category of intentional crimes, it relies on proving intent, and therefore can't be dismissed as accident, heat of passion, self defense or "gay panic". It punishes the crime because it has intent, lacking intent, you have an accident, a self defense, an irrational act in the heat of a moment, or knee jerk reaction (all valid defenses).

[mad cow]

If they punished the thought, they wouldn't need the action.


Well that sends chills down my spine.But it is what you have been arguing for all thread and I have been arguing against.

That would obviously call for thought police.Minority Report here we come.

[PRB]

Well that sends chills down my spine.But it is what you have been arguing for all thread and I have been arguing against.

That would obviously call for thought police.Minority Report here we come.

No it isn't. Minority Report is PRE-crime, not THOUGHT crime.

Your ignorance on criminal law is not an argument or criticism of the system's underlying rule.

Again, to punish a crime, you need both guilty mind and guilty act, you cannot be punished if you lacked either (with exception of strict liability crimes). That is, how things ARE, whether you like it or not.

[mad cow]

Do you think a black man all else being equal,should get a lesser sentence for murdering another black man than murdering a white man?

Do you think a gay man should get a lesser sentence for murdering another gay man than for murdering a straight man?

Do you think a woman should get a lesser sentence for murdering another woman than murdering a man?

Do you think an immigrant from Mexico should get a lesser sentence for murdering another immigrant from Mexico than an immigrant from France?

[PRB]

Do you think a black man all else being equal,should get a lesser sentence for murdering another black man than murdering a white man?

Do you think a gay man should get a lesser sentence for murdering another gay man than for murdering a straight man?

Do you think a woman should get a lesser sentence for murdering another woman than murdering a man?

Do you think an immigrant from Mexico should get a lesser sentence for murdering another immigrant from Mexico than an immigrant from France?

I think I already answered you, no to all. The deciding factor is intent, and preventibility, not whether the victim is a minority group.

[mad cow]

Again, to punish a crime, you need both guilty mind and guilty act

Well this is where we differ,I don't consider a black man who doesn't like white men or a woman who doesn't like men guilty of anything and they should never be punished for their thoughts.

However a murderer should be punished for murder regardless of the race,sex,color,creed or national origin of his victim.

Then again,I'm neither a bigot or a mind-reader.

[PRB]

Well this is where we differ,I don't consider a black man who doesn't like white men or a woman who doesn't like men guilty of anything and they should never be punished for their thoughts.


And I disagreed with you?


However a murderer should be punished for murder regardless of the race,sex,color,creed or national origin of his victim.


It's only murder if there's intent, absent intent it's called manslaughter. Who said otherwise, by the way?



Then again,I'm neither a bigot or a mind-reader.
Did you have a point? Are you so desperate to put words in my mouth now that after I've answered you multiple times you're still bent on pretending I said thought crimes should be punishable?

[mad cow]

Hate crimes say that a person should be punished more severely for murdering,say,a person of a different race,creed,color,sex or national origin than themselves because they hate them.How the prosecutor proves this without mind-reading is beyond me but suppose he does to that particular jury.

Should a black man accused of killing a white man,with the extra punishment of the hate crime provision,get hanged by the neck until dead as opposed to the 25 to life he would have gotten if his victim was black,if found guilty?

[PRB]

Hate crimes say that a person should be punished more severely for murdering,say,a person of a different race,creed,color,sex or national origin than themselves because they hate them.


Which is another way of saying, absent the hate/bias/motivation, the crime would have either not occurred, or would have been an accident lacking intent.

[PRB]

Should a black man accused of killing a white man,with the extra punishment of the hate crime provision,get hanged by the neck until dead as opposed to the 25 to life he would have gotten if his victim was black,if found guilty?

Again, you went back to asking "does the mere virtue of the victim being a minority justify extra punishment?" , the answer has been and still is, no. It is NOT automatically assumed that every minority victim is always the result of hate crime, even though prosecutors will generally try to seek such a punishment to secure intent.

It's very rare that people commit crimes for no reason at all, there's usually a good reason vs bad reason. When a prosecutor can't find motivation, it's often hard to prove intent too. So there isn't very many "all else being equal" cases.

[Origanalist]

Which is another way of saying, absent the hate/bias/motivation, the crime would have either not occurred, or would have been an accident lacking intent.

What if a white supremacist kills a black guy that surprised him while he was robbing his house?

[mad cow]

Should a black man accused of killing a white man,with the extra punishment of the hate crime provision,get hanged by the neck until dead as opposed to the 25 to life he would have gotten if his victim was black,if found guilty?

Yes or no.

[Anti Federalist]

Nice derail by PRB.

Back on subject...Good, hope they get sued blind.

Whisper campaigns into the ears of government enforcers in a system that we have now is a de facto indicator of evil intent and an act of aggression.

[mad cow]

What if a white supremacist kills a black guy that surprised him while he was robbing his house?

You would really have to read his mind to see what he was thinking at that moment.
Unless the robber was also a gay,transgender,Mormon immigrant from France.Then the sentence is obvious,Hang Him!

[Origanalist]

Nice derail by PRB.

Back on subject...Good, hope they get sued blind.

Whisper campaigns into the ears of government enforcers in a system that we have now is a de facto indicator of evil intent and an act of aggression.

From the comments at the link it's obvious we aren't the only ones who think those pricks are a blight on humanity.

[oyarde]

Nice derail by PRB.

Back on subject...Good, hope they get sued blind.

Whisper campaigns into the ears of government enforcers in a system that we have now is a de facto indicator of evil intent and an act of aggression.
I hope it is the end for them , fuck them and anyone who supports them ,

[PRB]

What if a white supremacist kills a black guy that surprised him while he was robbing his house?

Who was robbing whose house?

[PRB]

Should a black man accused of killing a white man,with the extra punishment of the hate crime provision,get hanged by the neck until dead as opposed to the 25 to life he would have gotten if his victim was black,if found guilty?

Yes or no.

You blind bro?
Again, you went back to asking "does the mere virtue of the victim being a minority justify extra punishment?" , the answer has been and still is, no. It is NOT automatically assumed that every minority victim is always the result of hate crime, even though prosecutors will generally try to seek such a punishment to secure intent.


It's very rare that people commit crimes for no reason at all, there's usually a good reason vs bad reason. When a prosecutor can't find motivation, it's often hard to prove intent too. So there isn't very many "all else being equal" cases.

[PRB]

Nice derail by PRB.

Back on subject...Good, hope they get sued blind.

Whisper campaigns into the ears of government enforcers in a system that we have now is a de facto indicator of evil intent and an act of aggression.

they won't get sued blind, their definition of hate group fits closely with FBI's use of the word, which is "a group whose primary purpose is to promote hostility to people based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability" to which the plaintiff's group meets.

[Origanalist]

Who was robbing whose house?

Does it matter?

[Pericles]

So your goal is to demonize SPLC, rather than fairly assess the groups which are victimized by SPLC's definition?
What is an example of a group which you believe SHOULD be a hate group but isn't?
What is an example of a group that shouldn't, but is classified by FBI or SPLC?

Enjoy the read here: https://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/

A sample to get things going:

Mr. Potok acknowledges the drop in his annual “Year in Hate and Extremism (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2014/spring/The-Year-in-Hate-and-Extremism)” screed, but as we’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, his claims of “spectacular growth” since the election of President Obama have never held much water.

“After four years of spectacular growth driven by the 2008 election of President Obama and the nearly simultaneous collapse of the economy, the radical right in America saw its first significant decrease in 2013.”
2009: The first full year of the Obama Administration and the worst year of the Great Recession returned “spectacular growth” of .6%


2010: Mr. Potok adds 70 new “hate groups” to his map, but at the same time the number of “homeless hate groups,” those Mr. Potok cannot locate on any map, including his own, jumped by 99, for a net loss of 2.9%


2011: Mr. Potok adds 16 new “hate groups” to his Hate Map for a mighty increase of 1.6%. That same year Mr. Potok states: “But Potok said the [Ku Klux] Klan has disintegrated. “There is no Klan now,” he said, only a collection of squabbling organizations. (www.sanluisobispo.com, March 23, 2011)


Doesn’t it seem a little odd that Mr. Potok would proclaim the disintegration of the KKK at the height of his alleged “hate group” boom? Or maybe “bubble” is a more accurate term. After a “spectacular growth” of -.6% for the first Obama Administration, Mr. Potok’s “hate groups” went into the visible decline of the past two years. The market can only absorb so much.

[mad cow]

You blind bro?
Again, you went back to asking "does the mere virtue of the victim being a minority justify extra punishment?" , the answer has been and still is, no. It is NOT automatically assumed that every minority victim is always the result of hate crime, even though prosecutors will generally try to seek such a punishment to secure intent.


It's very rare that people commit crimes for no reason at all, there's usually a good reason vs bad reason. When a prosecutor can't find motivation, it's often hard to prove intent too. So there isn't very many "all else being equal" cases.

Are you blind bro?The victim ain't a minority,he's white.

And you must be blind in both eyes because that is the second time I have asked you the same question,without getting an answer,and the second time you have claimed that the victim of my hypothetical was a minority.

[NativeOne]

This is interesting from so many angles *sits and munches popcorn*

http://i.imgur.com/agJIP.gif

[PRB]

Are you blind bro?The victim ain't a minority,he's white.

And you must be blind in both eyes because that is the second time I have asked you the same question,without getting an answer,and the second time you have claimed that the victim of my hypothetical was a minority.

I was blind in seeing the difference between whether the victim is white vs minority, so the answer is still no (I gave you an answer even if I misread your question, the answer would have been the same). I've not once said that by virtue of a person's skin color (be it minority or white) and different from the criminal, should the criminal be punished differently, not once. I've in fact explicitly said it's irrelevant.

I admit I misread you, but it was more that it didn't matter whether you said black or white, the answer would've been the same. So it wasn't that I "claimed" a white person is a minority, but that I was saying even if he was a minority, it wouldn't matter, I figured that'd have gotten the point across that skin color doesn't matter, apparently not.

I've answered you since post #101, you just wanted to keep asking the same question, and continue to accuse me of wanting to pushing a person differently based on whether his victim is a different skin color.

[PRB]

Does it matter?

Yes, or else you'd not ask me.

You want to take out the robbing part and ask me the question again?

[PRB]

Enjoy the read here: https://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/

A sample to get things going:

Mr. Potok acknowledges the drop in his annual “Year in Hate and Extremism (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2014/spring/The-Year-in-Hate-and-Extremism)” screed, but as we’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, his claims of “spectacular growth” since the election of President Obama have never held much water.
“After four years of spectacular growth driven by the 2008 election of President Obama and the nearly simultaneous collapse of the economy, the radical right in America saw its first significant decrease in 2013.”

2009: The first full year of the Obama Administration and the worst year of the Great Recession returned “spectacular growth” of .6%


2010: Mr. Potok adds 70 new “hate groups” to his map, but at the same time the number of “homeless hate groups,” those Mr. Potok cannot locate on any map, including his own, jumped by 99, for a net loss of 2.9%


2011: Mr. Potok adds 16 new “hate groups” to his Hate Map for a mighty increase of 1.6%. That same year Mr. Potok states: “But Potok said the [Ku Klux] Klan has disintegrated. “There is no Klan now,” he said, only a collection of squabbling organizations. (www.sanluisobispo.com (http://www.sanluisobispo.com), March 23, 2011)


Doesn’t it seem a little odd that Mr. Potok would proclaim the disintegration of the KKK at the height of his alleged “hate group” boom? Or maybe “bubble” is a more accurate term. After a “spectacular growth” of -.6% for the first Obama Administration, Mr. Potok’s “hate groups” went into the visible decline of the past two years. The market can only absorb so much.

I don't think you answered my question

[PRB]

SPLC may have so much "influence" because they are a government front group. Wouldn't it be funny if among the 'criteria' documents that are submitted under the subpeona turns out to be correspondence from a government agency, tell them to "go after this group" now?

funny? I think that's exactly what you'd expect.

[mad cow]

I was blind in seeing the difference between whether the victim is white vs minority, so the answer is still no (I gave you an answer even if I misread your question, the answer would have been the same). I've not once said that by virtue of a person's skin color (be it minority or white) and different from the criminal, should the criminal be punished differently, not once. I've in fact explicitly said it's irrelevant.

I admit I misread you, but it was more that it didn't matter whether you said black or white, the answer would've been the same. So it wasn't that I "claimed" a white person is a minority, but that I was saying even if he was a minority, it wouldn't matter, I figured that'd have gotten the point across that skin color doesn't matter, apparently not.

I've answered you since post #101, you just wanted to keep asking the same question, and continue to accuse me of wanting to pushing a person differently based on whether his victim is a different skin color.

You are a slippery one.Now please answer the question:

Should a black man accused of killing a white man,with the extra punishment of the hate crime provision,get hanged by the neck until dead as opposed to the 25 to life he would have gotten if his victim was black,if found guilty?

Yes or no.

[PRB]

You are a slippery one.Now please answer the question:

Should a black man accused of killing a white man,with the extra punishment of the hate crime provision,get hanged by the neck until dead as opposed to the 25 to life he would have gotten if his victim was black,if found guilty?

Yes or no.

No (not the first time I said it, but you seem to never see the answer)

[mad cow]

No (not the first time I said it, but you seem to never see the answer)

So when should the hate crime provision obtain?

[PRB]

So when should the hate crime provision obtain?

Oh, so you asked that question 3 times just so you can ask this one? Why didn't you just ask this to begin with?

Hate crime provision should apply when it's used establish intent, to prevent the defense from claiming insanity, panic, accident, self defense. Hate crime is a specific kind of intentional crime, hate crime legislation helps secure criminal intent, as without criminal intent, unless it's a strict liability crime, there is no punishable crime.

Again, hate crime is used to punish the crime, not the thought, absent the thought, you lose intent, and therefore may lose your chance of trying the crime as intentional.

[mad cow]

I already stated that the prosecutor had proven to the jury's satisfaction that the black man had committed a hate crime.

So do you agree with the prosecutor and the jury that the black man should be hanged by the neck until dead for killing a white man as opposed to the 25 to life he would have gotten under identical circumstances had he killed another black man?

[tod evans]

PRB,

Read the following very slowly, let it sink in........

Then if you have further questions try google, the concept of "Mens-Re" goes back to the Magna-Carta...



MENS REA

Criminal intent. The state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994). However, for strict liability crimes, state of mind as to at least one element of the crime is irrelevant.

[MRK]

What authority does the government have to make a private organization share its proprietary information?

[tod evans]

What authority does the government have

Guns, lots of guns!

And the mindless minions that'll use them under the guise of "for the greater good"...

[pcosmar]

What authority does the government have to make a private organization share its proprietary information?

The Constitution. The 6th Amendment.

to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

He has been accused,
He has a right to gather evidence in his favor.

[PRB]

PRB,

Read the following very slowly, let it sink in........

Then if you have further questions try google, the concept of "Mens-Re" goes back to the Magna-Carta...

I've said that strict liability crimes do not require mens rea, every time I brought up requirement of mens rea. So I don't see your point.

[PRB]

I already stated that the prosecutor had proven to the jury's satisfaction that the black man had committed a hate crime.

So do you agree with the prosecutor and the jury that the black man should be hanged by the neck until dead for killing a white man as opposed to the 25 to life he would have gotten under identical circumstances had he killed another black man?

you might as well ask me what if the prosecutor has proven to the jury's satisfaction that a person did something he didn't.

but no, I don't agree, not that it matters since the prosecutor has already convinced the jury.

[Origanalist]

Yes, or else you'd not ask me.

You want to take out the robbing part and ask me the question again?

Not really.

[Pericles]

I don't think you answered my question

Your question can't be answered because it requires a definition of hate group on which we can agree.

When you post
FBI's definition seems to be

Hate Group – an organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility and malice against persons belonging to a different race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity or national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization.

I can't accept that as a definition because it covers activities covered by the first amendment that are Constitutionally protected, as repugnant as they may be.

Potok himself acknowledges there is no criteria which results in an entity being included or excluded from the SPLC hate list.

After widespread ridicule for not including black hate groups like the New Black Panther party, they are now on the "hate map" and 25% of the hate groups listed for Pennsylvania are black. Somehow that fact got missed in the SPLC press release on the "explosive growth" of hate groups.

Personally, I would include the Earth Liberation Front http://www.earth-liberation-front.com/ who have actually destroyed property and committed acts of violence in pursuit of their objectives, unlike any "militia" listed by the SPLC.

[PRB]

Your question can't be answered because it requires a definition of hate group on which we can agree.


No it doesn't, you're free to use your own.




When you post

I can't accept that as a definition because it covers activities covered by the first amendment that are Constitutionally protected, as repugnant as they may be.


Hate groups are not illegal, nobody has said they were.



Potok himself acknowledges there is no criteria which results in an entity being included or excluded from the SPLC hate list.


Citation?



After widespread ridicule for not including black hate groups like the New Black Panther party, they are now on the "hate map" and 25% of the hate groups listed for Pennsylvania are black. Somehow that fact got missed in the SPLC press release on the "explosive growth" of hate groups.

Personally, I would include the Earth Liberation Front http://www.earth-liberation-front.com/ who have actually destroyed property and committed acts of violence in pursuit of their objectives, unlike any "militia" listed by the SPLC.

ELF is a terrorist group who commits crimes, now, who do they hate, if you want to call them a hate group.

[Pericles]

No it doesn't, you're free to use your own.


Pointless - I have no desire to track "hate groups". I believe in the liberty to express a point of view.


Hate groups are not illegal, nobody has said they were.

Then what is the point of creating such a list? Attempted intimidation comes to mind. And as the head of the SPLC sits on the DHS advisory panel, and the .gov pays the SPLC for "training", the SPLC is well positioned to have its opinions become the foundation for government action. Having one's political views become governmental policy is the very foundation of bad government, as no public hearing or scrutiny takes place.


Citation?

The link in my previous post, which I can now assume that you did not read, and are now just wasting my valuable time.


ELF is a terrorist group who commits crimes, now, who do they hate, if you want to call them a hate group.

All who do not share their view on environmental policy - see how easy that is.

[PRB]

Pointless - I have no desire to track "hate groups". I believe in the liberty to express a point of view.


Which is exactly what SPLC or any volunteer watchdog group does. You are free to not track such groups, but if you want to complain they are unfair with their definition, I wanted to hear yours.



Then what is the point of creating such a list? Attempted intimidation comes to mind.

Education? Awareness? Entertainment? Listing something does not make it illegal.



And as the head of the SPLC sits on the DHS advisory panel, and the .gov pays the SPLC for "training", the SPLC is well positioned to have its opinions become the foundation for government action. Having one's political views become governmental policy is the very foundation of bad government, as no public hearing or scrutiny takes place.


your unsatisified voice is public scrutiny. what they do cannot violate laws against profiling or privacy.




The link in my previous post, which I can now assume that you did not read, and are now just wasting my valuable time.

All who do not share their view on environmental policy - see how easy that is.
so your idea of hate group is, anybody who hates anybody? so if you hate child molesters, you're a hate group?

[pcosmar]

so if you hate child molesters, you're a hate group?

If there are two or more of you,,yes.