If I can ever find a lawyer willing to do it, which has proven so far to be harder than I thought it would be, I will sue the SPLC myself. Their “hate group” designation for me and Jihad Watch is as defamatory as it is for the others mentioned in this article, and has resulted in donations to Jihad Watch not being accepted by MasterCard and Visa, and in my being dropped from Patreon and GoFundMe. It has also resulted in my being shadowbanned on Twitter and Facebook, and routinely vilified in the establishment media. The idea that opposing jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims and others is “hate” is absurd, and the fact that so many people take it for granted is testimony to the deep pockets of the SPLC and the power of propaganda. I’ll challenge them on it legally as soon as I possibly can, although of course the SPLC and I are in a race: will they get me completely deplatformed and altogether silenced before I am able to challenge their smears in court? We shall see.
“Google May Face RICO, Defamation Lawsuits Due to SPLC Partnership, Lawyers Say,” by Tyler O’Neil, PJ Media, January 28, 2019:
In recent years, the far-Left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has faced a slew of lawsuits regarding its deceptive practice of branding mainstream conservative and Christian groups “hate groups” on par with the Ku Klux Klan. Google has decided to partner with the SPLC, even encouraging employees to work for the organization. Conservative lawyers told PJ Media this partnership may make the tech giant vulnerable to defamation and racketeering lawsuits.
This month, Fortune reported that Google’s philanthropic arm, Google.org, launched a program that will pay Google employees to do pro bono work for nonprofit groups for up to six months. The company aims to achieve 50,000 hours of pro bono work this year. Google.org names the SPLC as one of its partners for “inclusion.” Google.org started funding the far-Left group in 2016, and has given the organization $250,000, specifically to fund a “total redesign of the Teaching Tolerance website.”
“Teaching Tolerance,” an SPLC project aimed at teachers for elementary, middle, and high schools across America, has referenced the SPLC’s “hate map,” endorsing the “hate group” labels, before and after Google.org funding. Even if Teaching Tolerance were distanced from the “hate group” smears, Google.org explicitly names the SPLC as the recipient of funding and the partner — which likely means Google employees can do pro bono work for the SPLC.
“It does appear that there’s more than funding that is taking place between Google and the SPLC and other tech companies, to the point where there’s interaction, potentially plotting, and the involvement of their so-called ‘hate group’ label that is designed for one reason — to destroy the opposition based on ideology,” Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, told PJ Media. He said “it’s plausible” Google may face RICO and defamation charges in future lawsuits.
“If I was Google’s corporate counsel, I would be telling my board of directors that this is a very bad decision and they should not be involved with this organization,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former in-house corporate counsel, told PJ Media.
“I think that opens them up to potential liability. If one of their organizations is working for the SPLC, when the SPLC is sued under defamation or a RICO suit, that could potentially bring Google into the lawsuit,” von Spakovsky added.
Google did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
A growing number of individuals and organizations have filed lawsuits against the far-Left group in recent years. The Christian nonprofit Liberty Counsel led the charge in June 2017, accusing the charity navigation website GuideStar of violating consumer protection laws by using SPLC’s false and defamatory labels. D. James Kennedy Ministries followed with a defamation suit in August of that year. Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz also filed a defamation suit, since the SPLC had branded him an “anti-Islamic extremist.”
The SPLC settled with Nawaz last year, paying $3.375 million. After that settlement, Staver told PJ Media that about 60 different organizations were considering defamation lawsuits against the SPLC.
In December, attorney Glen Keith Allen filed a massive lawsuit, including defamation and charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
“RICO itself is not a violation of the law, it applies on top of and in addition to an underlying violation,” Staver explained. Allen’s lawsuit charged the SPLC and two employees with RICO counts involving mail fraud.
If a court rules the SPLC broke the law by sending fraudulent communication through the mail or on the internet, RICO comes into play if there is “also a conspiracy and an enterprise that is taking place among different people or organizations over a specific period of time,” Staver explained. “RICO comes on top of [the penalties under the law] and triples the damages and requires recovery of attorney fees.”
Earlier this month, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) filed a very specific RICO and wire fraud lawsuit against the SPLC, specifically for falsely branding CIS a “hate group,” although CIS did not fit the far-Left group’s definition of a “hate group.”
Teaching Tolerance has specifically attacked CIS as unreliable, and the SPLC still includes CIS on its list and map of “hate groups.” CIS did not respond to request for comment as to whether or not this liability could bring Google into its active lawsuit.
In 2012 that “hate map” inspired a terrorist attack against the Family Research Council (FRC). While the SPLC condemned the attack, it did not remove FRC from the list of “hate groups” or the “hate map.”
In 2017 the man who shot Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) in the congressional baseball game shooting had “liked” the SPLC on Facebook. The far-Left group had attacked Scalise multiple times.
On multiple occasions, former spokesman Mark Potok explained that the SPLC’s “aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them.”
Even so, many media outlets cite the far-Left group’s “hate group” list as accurate, and tech companies have decided to blacklist conservative organizations on the list. The Ruth Institute lost its donation processing company. Amazon.com’s charity organization, Amazon Smile, dropped D. James Kennedy Ministries and Alliance Defending Freedom. Patreon booted Robert Spencer from its platform….
Read the rest here.
mortimer says
SPLC states its leftarded opinions and presents them as ‘facts’, even when it is clearly their opinion. They have a lot of gall and I hope the judges will see it that way when the evidence is presented.
We should not have to fight for our freedom of expression under attack from traitors within. If anyone doesn’t like the First Amendment, they should move to a dictatorship like Russia, Turkey or China and see how complete censorship works for them.
Renate says
SPLC is the hate group.
Mary Ahrweiler says
Write Google!! Write Mastercard!! Write Twitter!! Write Facebook!! Make some noise before you can no longer make noise!
gravenimage says
Agreed, Mary. Don’t be silent!
mortimer says
Ask Google, MasterCard, Twitter, and Facebook: DO YOU WANT TO GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS ENEMIES OF FREE SPEECH, BECAUSE YOU CERTAINLY WILL UNLESS YOU REVERSE YOUR COURSE.
gravenimage says
I think the best approach is to be polite but firm.
David Grisez says
One of the big problems with the Southern Poverty Law Center is that over time they have become recognized by people in our government and various groups and businesses as the Authoritative Source on which groups and organizations are Hate Groups. But SPLC is very leftist and biased and arbitrary in its designation of Hate Groups. SPLC even designates some Christian groups as Hate Groups. I am not surprised that Robert Spencer can not find any lawyer who will sue SPLC for its designation of Jihad Watch as a Hate Group. These lawyers believe that they will lose any lawsuit against SPLC. This shows the kind of power the SPLC has.
mortimer says
Agree. It’s starting to look like a conspiracy to silence opposition to globalism.
Bill says
It is a plan to silence opposition. Well past looking like a conspiracy.
Google is one of the prime actors is undermining national sovereignty and pushing the global agenda. National laws and borders are an impediment to them. Individual rights and freedom are an anathema to them. They will do whatever they have to do to assure that their platform becomes the universal means of internet communication and eliminate from the discourse anyone who would voice a dissenting opinon. They will sell spyware, surveillance software, data sharing, data mining, and any service they can put a price on to despots anywhere that will agree to use Google. They do not care a whit about Islam beyond the fact that it is the “go to” tool for Google and their ilk in insuring the destruction of the barriers to their hegemony.
Look past Google to their shareholders, look to see who owns the interests that constitute the controlling shareholders. There you will find the true authors of this global mayhem.
bob kelly says
Robert what a great overview of splc. But looks like they may get their goose cooked , they have made many enemies. You do great journalism.
Max says
Capitalism allowed the top management of these organisations to become many times billionaires, but they now want socialism to replace capitalism in order to prevent others from getting rich.
mortimer says
Exactly, it’s a conspiracy to silence other voices besides their own. It’s a new FEUDAL SYSTEM.
thebigW says
“Their “hate group” designation for me and Jihad Watch is as defamatory as it is for the others mentioned in this article”
Nope, Robert Spencer is wrong. The SPLC got at least one of them right:
“Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz also filed a defamation suit, since the SPLC had branded him an “anti-Islamic extremist.” ”
Course, the SPLC doesn’t know why Nawaz is a hater, so they’re the broken clock saying “12” when it’s noon. Ain’t it important for us to say that, rather than imply that Maajid Nawaz is one of us? Hmmmm???
gravenimage says
thebigW wrote:
Ain’t it important for us to say that, rather than imply that Maajid Nawaz is one of us? Hmmmm???
……………………
Well, Maajid Nawaz is “one of us” in that he was also targeted by the SPLC. After that it gets a *lot* murkier, I’m afraid.
More on him and the SPLC case specifically here:
“Hypocrisy: Maajid Nawaz suing SPLC for naming him ‘anti-Muslim extremist'”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/hypocrisy-maajid-nawaz-suing-splc-for-naming-him-anti-muslim-extremist
More on him in general here:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/tag/maajid-nawaz
Maajid Nawaz is, at best, a pretty equivocal figure.
J D S says
The SPLC Has long outlived its original purpose..it just defector go away.
Frank Anderson says
JDS, the purpose of SPLC is to keep the lawyers and staff employed and paid well. Attend any presentation or fund-raiser to see for yourself.
Brigitte from Germany says
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/removal-d-mn-iihan-abdullahi-omar-5th-congressional-district-her-participation-marriage-fraud
Sorry, another theme.
This petition is in a hurry, only to Febr. 4th
so please sign and share it.
Thanks a lot.
No sharia says
Excellent, just signed right now
Frank Anderson says
Mr. Spencer, you have my contact information. I am retired and should not unretire. Without charge or obligation and in performance of my duty to alert non-lawyers to their legal rights and duties, there are suggestions you might wish to consider that should not be aired online. I wish you well, and total success in your mission.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
gravenimage says
I hope Mr. Spencer gets in touch.
Frank Anderson says
GI, I hope there is no doubt about my support. There is no point in repeating the process that I had to follow to obtain such victory as I had in my similar war.
gravenimage says
I *never* doubt your support, Frank. You are as staunch an Anti-Jihadist as anyone here.
Hope you are doing well.
Frank Anderson says
Thank you.
mortimer says
Mr. Anderson, thanks for standing for us all! Thank you so much, and good luck. I will chip in.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, I HOPE an alternative way can be found to deal with the problem. If we want to see the successful defeat of the enemies of freedom and liberty, it will take a fight that does not end. As soon as one is beaten, another will take its place.
To fund a plaintiff’s case in this fight, it must be remembered that the primary defendant is a Licensed Law Firm which has been plying its trade for more or less 60 years. They have essentially unlimited income AND INSURANCE. No plaintiff will be able to match dollars with them. Multiple plaintiffs will simply speed up the process of bankrupting themselves and their attorneys by the maneuvers I have explained before. If a thousand people contributed every single month for the duration of the fight a hundred dollars each, a single plaintiff might be able to fight. But that does not assure any verdict, and certainly not any profitable recovery.
I spent 15 years in a solo, self-funded war against just such corrupt, unlimited power. It took EVERYTHING I could apply to keep my licenses. At one point I literally had to dig ditches, sweep floors and carry out garbage to eat. If I had lost my license in one state (as my ex-wife wished), the other state’s license would be taken automatically by “reciprocal discipline”. When I tried to sue for the violation of my rights and witness protection law, every resource I could call on was nothing compared to the influence, resources and power of the defense. The best I could accomplish was to prove forever 1) that I could and would fight, 2) what had been done, and 3) make a record for all to see for all time what had been done by corrupt officials contrary to federal law, but totally without my being paid a dime for the end of my life and professional opportunities. I was murdered professionally for OBEYING the rules published by the very people who made the rules, and they didn’t have to pay a dime for their wrong. But they will think twice before they try that again against me. Unlike the first time around, I know how to fight where I was as green as grass when this war started.
No target of defamation has an easy path or meaningful probability of a profitable case where more is collected than is spent on the war.
TruthHonestReality says
The google people, facebook people and the twitter people lied under oath and they all need to face charges. I’m sick of people that could and should do their jobs yet they continue to not do their job.
The only action that will stop these sites to be bipartisan is people stop using them or they face charges for the lying they committed under oath.
These sites are the enemy of the american people.
Joe says
Mr. Spencer, you might already know this, but usually the most willing and able attorneys to sue SPLC are the ones who beat them in the past.
terry says
SPLC stupid partisan law center
Raja says
Legal recourse is still one of the best alternatives to confront Leftist and Muslim lies and propaganda.
The tech/media giants like Face Book, Twitter and Google have never bothered about the plight of conservatives against the extremism of Islam and Left. On the contrary they reward the thuggish behavior of Islam and the Left and have the gall to call anyone with free thoughts as hateful.
Jihadwatch.org is branded as a hate site across net but what is the yardstick that is applied here. no one knows.
Who are the Left that they should set benchmark especially since they are so retarded.. Calling for hatred and murder is not hate but exposing the same is hate. It is high time we had some sanity in public life…..
Lorensacho says
Robert you speak the truth and as Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men, your critics can’t handle the truth.
Truth says
I may be canceling my Visa card soon. Discover card works good. American Express too.
Frank Anderson says
If any other lawyer wishes to look at the issues of a private Civil RICO claim, the statutory foundation of the claim should start at 18 United States Code Section 1964. The US Supreme Court case of Sedima v Imrex is the next research step to understand what is involved in presenting as case BACK THEN, Subsequent changes in the law by Congress and court decision make winning a claim more difficult and doubtful. Searching the term “private civil RICO action” or similar should lead to several informative articles.
The MAJOR problem for a RICO theory civil claim is that IF you win, your DAMAGE award is LIMITED to Treble Damages, what amount you can actually prove as a direct result of any RICO violation times 3, plus attorney fees and litigation expenses. The possibility of spending and sacrificing Millions of dollars to collect little or nothing cannot be ignored if a prudent decision-making process is followed. Is this a way to hurt or help with achieving desired goals?
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
somehistory says
In many cases taken to court, people not a part of the trial may be called in the “punishment [phase” to testify about what the defendant did to them.
In the case of JW and what the splc has done, and for Mr. Spencer personally, what the splc has done, if called as a “witness” during the punishment phase, this could prove helpful in changing the funding climate that the splc has so affected by their libel.
Would it be possible to contact the attorneys who are suing the splc and possibly Google for what they have said?
Libel may be hard to prove when the person affected is “famous” or a “public person,” but if it can be shown that the reputation has been so hurt that the livelihood has been affected, the ability to make money, etc., then the case can be won against those writing falsehoods.
Truth says
Does SPLC stand for Southern Prejudiced Liberal Center?
Frank Anderson says
There is an article circulating today (1/31/2019) from the Thomas More Society seeking, among other things, to fund the criminal defense of a whistleblower. Their goal is to raise 3 Million dollars for his defense that I suggest will be much simpler and shorter than any defamation action being discussed or contemplated. I suggest this illustrates in magnitude how much pre-judgment plaintiff funding would probably be needed in a long term war over defamation claims. Unlike criminal cases on television, Private claims, civil suits between private parties, are rarely severed into “guilt” and “penalty” or “sentencing” phases. In defamation cases, unless measurable financial injury is proved, there is no liability or “guilt”. Look at the legal elements of a defamation claim: DAMAGES is the final element. Yes, before I retired I prosecuted defamation cases.
Filing a suit (making a claim) does not guarantee either a victory or a recovery (profit) that equals or exceeds the money, time, lost opportunities, and other resources spent in the combat. Expecting the “civil” litigation to be conducted in a “gentlemanly” and ethical fashion is utterly delusional. Since SPLC is in Alabama, the case probably would wind up in Alabama and be heard, even in Federal Court, with much of Alabama law applying. The Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which were adapted from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with the participation of one of my law school professors, contains many opportunities to make a plaintiff’s life and case MISERABLE and EXPENSIVE. Much would depend on the trial judge limiting the defense tactics, which in my experience is little comfort.. This would to most be just another case to get off their crowded docket.
Whatever else SPLC stands for, it stands for continuing to make its members, associates and staff rich regardless of any other objective. Attend any of its speakers or fundraisers to see for yourself.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.