Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch | SPLC | Bias

No surprise that Hatewatch is a political tool, not an objective listing

In the academic study Watching the Watchers: The Neglect of Academic Analysis of Progressive Groups, published in the January 2014 issue of Academic Questions, Professor John Yancey finds that Southern Poverty Law Center provides a concrete example of irrational shortcomings regarding the publishing of its Hatewatch list.

The academic paper was reported by Napp Nazworth at the Christian Post

The Hatewatch list is, in actual fact, a list of Southern Poverty Law Centers enemiesoftentimes Christian groups, for example. In August 2012, a man carrying a copy of that Hatewatch liststarted shooting in the lobby of the Family Research Council buildingin Washington, DC. Southern Poverty Law Center had placed the pro-Christian Family Research Council on its Hatewatch.

Yancey points out examples where, according to SPLCs definition of hate group, leftist organizations should be included on its list.

As our society became more politically partisan, SPLC cemented its position as speaking for those with progressive political and social attitudes. Rather than developing into an objective clearinghouse for the identification of hatred no matter where the source of that hatred may develop SPLC has become a useful organization for progressives to legitimate their battle against conservatives. Since conservative Christians are categorized as opponents there is little, if any, incentive for SPLC to recognize hateful expressions against Christians, because doing so actually works against the social vested interest of the group.

Even after the publishing of this study, SPLCs website forges ahead with erroneous and bizarre declarations that only suit its extremist political agenda. For example, see how SPLC tries to malign Patriot groups by including them with the Oklahoma City bombers. From the SPLC website:

Since 2000, the number of hate groups has increased by 56 percent. This surge has been fueled by anger and fear over the nations ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nations first African-American president.

These factors also are feeding a powerful resurgence of the antigovernment Patriot movement, which in the 1990s led to a string of domestic terrorist plots, including the Oklahoma City bombing. The number of Patriot groups, including armed militias, skyrocketed following the election of President Obama in 2008 rising 813 percent, from 149 groups in 2008 to an all-time high of 1,360 in 2012. The number fell to 1,096 in 2013.

In 2010 Professor Jacobson detailed how the SPLCs Hatewatch and the organization in general has been detrimental in the real fight against hate:

Time and again SPLC, through its Hatewatch division, seeks to shut down debate by applying the hate group or similar epithets to political opponents, and those political opponents almost always are conservative.

Being labeled a hate groupby SPLC can be devastating, because most of the country is unaware of how politicized SPLC has become. Until I started blogging a little over two years ago, I too was working off of SPLCs prior reputation of fighting real hate groups, like the Klan.

Yanceys study ought to provide the impetus for a conversation amongst all level-headed academics about why groups like Southern Poverty Law Center are given a pass as they apply an arbitrary and partisan-fueled standard to intimidate, inspire fear, and malign those with whom they disagree.

As a sidenote, last summer I passed a group of women asking for signatures for the Southern Poverty Law Center. After hurrying by and refusing to sign, I stopped, turned around, and asked the woman if I could speak to her about the group. I told her how, as a Christian who believes wholeheartedly in the message of my faithof love and tolerance and of standards and of sin, I would be labeled as someone who promulgates hate.

She was shocked, said she had no idea who they were and was just doing it for a job. As I watched, she gathered the two other women and they left the street. I have no idea if they stopped asking for signatures, but I felt like it was my responsibility to let her knowand I encourage you to do the samethat while because a group says theyre fighting hate, your good intentions may be in fact enabling an organization that ought to examine itself along that score.

For all Legal Insurrection posts regarding the Southern Poverty Law Center, see our SPLC Tag, including these posts:

(Featured image: Mark Potok of SPLC Hatewatch blaming radical right for Gabby Giffords shooting YouTube)

Originally posted here:

Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch | SPLC | Bias

Related Post

February 2, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: SPLC |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."