SPLC Leads Soros-Funded Groups in 'Orwellian' Attempt to Ban 'Hate Speech' on Social

SPLC Leads Soros-Funded Groups in 'Orwellian' Attempt to Ban 'Hate Speech' on Social Media


https://static.pjmedia.com/user-cont...ed-50x50xf.png BY TYLER O'NEIL
OCTOBER 29, 2018

Last week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) teamed up with five other groups funded by George Soros to pressure tech companies to "reduce hateful activities on their platforms." While this sounds like a noble goal, mainstream conservative and Christian groups that have fallen afoul of the SPLC warned that these liberal organizations have an "Orwellian" definition of hate that most Americans would disagree with. Worse, social media companies already seem biased against conservatives, and this SPLC campaign would only embolden that bias.

On Wednesday, the SPLC led a coalition of groups in releasing "Change the Terms," aiming to convince Big Tech to "reduce hateful activities on their platforms." The coalition warned that "white supremacist and other organizations that incite hate are using online platforms to organize, fund, recruit supporters for, and normalize racism, sexism, religious bigotry, as well as anti-LGBTQ and anti-immigrant animus, among other activities."
While the overwhelming majority of Americans abhor wicked ideologies like white supremacy, the SPLC boldly associates its political opponents with similar "hate," smearing them as "hate groups" to be compared with the KKK.

"It's obviously concerning that they want to censor free speech, and of course their definition of 'hate speech' is not what most people think of as hate speech," Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the Christian legal nonprofit Liberty Counsel, told PJ Media.

"Most people think of hate speech as somebody encouraging physical violence," Staver argued. Groups like the SPLC "extend it to anybody who doesn't accept their view on LGBT issues, same-sex marriage, abortion, immigration, or Islam."

Indeed, the SPLC paid $3.375 million to settle a defamation lawsuit from Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim reformer the SPLC had branded an "anti-Muslim extremist." Following this settlement, Staver told PJ Media that 60 groups like Liberty Counsel — which has been branded a "hate group" by the SPLC — were considering separate defamation lawsuits against the smear factory.

Staver argued that the SPLC's definition of "hate" reminds him of the outright lying associated with George Orwell's famous classic 1984. "Their definition is Orwellian," he said. "Their definition is no different than Bill Clinton's, 'It depends on what the definition of is is.'"

Tech companies have already targeted Liberty Counsel for adverse treatment thanks to the SPLC's "hate group" list. "We had Norton Security software attempt to block us," Staver recalled. "We sent a demand letter, and they withdrew the block. When they did their own review, they concluded that we were not a hate group."

If tech companies consider "Change the Terms," they should also examine the source.

"Tech companies should be aware that the Southern Poverty Law Center was connected in federal court to domestic terrorism when the shooter who attacked the Family Research Council in 2012 pled guilty to the crime while confessing that he relied on the SPLC's discredited 'hate map' to target the FRC," Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, executive vice president at the Family Research Council (FRC), told PJ Media.

Indeed, the convicted terrorist who attempted to kill everyone in the FRC's Washington, D.C., office admitted that he used the SPLC's "hate map" to find his target. Even so, the SPLC has not reconsidered its "hate group" designation for FRC, and outlets like CNN plastered the SPLC "hate map" online, with no caveats.

Boykin warned that "the SPLC is a political defamation machine that has little respect for freedom of thought and expression. The SPLC is calling on tech companies to sacrifice free speech on the altar of political correctness."

"To demand that social media platforms push past First Amendment principles to pursue nothing but the strictest forms of content-based regulation on free speech is to throw decades of jurisprudence on the fires of history," Boykin argued. "The SPLC's requests are nothing more than a demand to acquiesce to Neo-Marxism."

The SPLC and its coalition would likely respond that the proposed terms do not violate the First Amendment. In a set of Frequently Asked Questions on the "Change the Terms" website, the groups argue that "hateful activity" means "activities that incite or engage in violence, intimidation, harassment, threats, or defamation targeting an individual or group based on their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability."

"Because of the strict definition of hateful activity found in the terms of service, these policies will not block free speech," the site claims. The First Amendment does not bind a private company, but it also does not protect all speech. "We carefully wrote the definition of hateful activity to cover types of speech that courts have said are not protected as free speech: incitement, violence, intimidation, harassment, threats, and defamation."

The difficulty comes, however, in the application of these terms. "Change the Terms" calls on tech companies to "allow for individuals and organizations — but not government actors — to flag hateful activities, as well as flag groups and individuals engaged in hateful activities," and to "create a trusted flagger program for vetted, well-established civil and human rights organizations to expedite review of potential hateful activities."

Monitoring content on massive social media sites is difficult, so the SPLC and its Soros-funded allies are here to help! Just who would these "civil and human rights organizations" be?


The coalition includes the Center for American Progress (CAP), a left-wing group whose former president served as chief of staff for both Bill and Hillary Clinton. CAP admits receiving more than $1 million from Soros' Open Society Foundations, but the Media Research Center put the number at $10 million — back in 2015!

CAP and the SPLC also teamed up with Free Press (which received $350,000 from Open Society Foundations in 2009), Color of Change (whose co-founders are Van Jones and a former MoveOn.org director, and which received $550,000 from the Open Society Foundation), the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (a group that opposed Robert Bork in 1984 and received more than $900,000 from Soros groups), and the National Hispanic Media Coalition (which took $450,000from Open Society Foundations in 2016). Not to be left out, the SPLC also received a $75,000 grant from Open Society Foundations in 2016.

(Note: All Americans should condemn the bombing attempt against George Soros, but that attack does not make the Leftist donor any less liberal. His money machinations have brought down governments and he has directed funds to fundamentally change America.)

Jennifer Roback Morse, a leader at the Ruth Institute (which lost its credit-card processor thanks to the SPLC's "hate group" label), told PJ Media that "'Change the Terms' seems to be a coalition of well-funded hard-Left organizations intent on shutting down even small opponents."

Lamentably, "the people behind 'Change the Terms' appear to be completely oblivious to their own biases," Morse noted. She warned that "independent thinkers should not allow groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to censor the Internet."

Even so, many tech companies seem to have the right kind of biases to fall for the SPLC's rhetoric. A survey earlier this year found that conservatives working for Silicon Valley companies live in fear of their political opinions being exposed. Studies have found massive support for Democrats over Republicans at Apple, Amazon, and Google. Making matters worse, these companies already cite the SPLC's "hate group" list, with Amazon removing D. James Kennedy Ministries and Alliance Defending Freedom from its Amazon Smile program, and Apple partnering with the SPLC.

In August, Facebook censored conservative articles, marking them as "spam." It also censored the popular conservative video nonprofit PragerU, and when the employee responsible became known, Facebook did not fire him. PragerU has already sued Google and YouTube over "intentional censorship" of their videos.

Matthew Taylor, director of the new film "The Creepy Line," told PJ Media he found "Change the Terms" "deeply concerning and potentially dangerous."

"As we have seen, these companies are not ideologically neutral and already they see themselves as censors of ideas they deem against their world view," Taylor noted. "While this is bad for innovation and the development of thought, it becomes more dangerous when this plays out in a free society."

"What if these companies see a person or group of people as ideological threats?" Taylor wondered. "This kind of discrimination can trickle down to how you voted, where you shop, what do you with your free time, etc. Any of these identifiers could potentially be a means of discrimination according to these efforts."

Indeed, New York Times bestselling author Peter Schweizer told PJ Media last month that Google and Facebook have the kind of power that historical dictators like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong "would dream about." Dr. Robert Epstein, a psychologist who studies search engine manipulation effects (and a supporter of Hillary Clinton), argues that Google bias gave Hillary Clinton her popular vote margin in the 2016 election.

While many conservatives expressed deep concern about "Change the Terms," one conservative advocate for free speech online actually saw the effort as a positive sign that tech companies are feeling the backlash from censorship.
"It seems the growing recognition by elected officials and grassroots Americans of the clear pattern of censorship of Christian and conservative viewpoints by Big Tech has rattled progressives seeking to suppress those views," James Smith, vice president of communications at National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), told PJ Media.

"National Religious Broadcasters for many years has urged social media platforms to adopt a Free Speech Charter based on First Amendment principles," Smith noted. "We did so again a year ago when we launched Internet Freedom Watch. Such a standard, based on centuries of American jurisprudence, would enable the rightful blocking of violent or obscene content without trampling on free speech liberties upon which our nation is founded."

The NRB VP also noted that Dr. Jerry Johnson, NRB's president, renewed that call in September, warning that if tech companies do not adopt such a charter by January 1, 2019, he will lead an effort to call on Congress to reevaluate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a key legal protection for Big Tech.

Smith cited some examples of censorship on Internet Freedom Watch's timeline. "When Lila Rose's LiveAction is censored from promoting her pro-life views on Twitter while Planned Parenthood can push its pro-abortion views on the platform — just to state one egregious example — there's no doubt that viewpoints out of favor with progressives are being suppressed by Big Tech."

Smith argued that "Change the Terms" shows that NRB's efforts to highlight social media censorship are working. "Internet Freedom Watch and other efforts to draw attention to online viewpoint censorship is clearly making a difference if such a coalition is seeking to pressure Big Tech to even greater degrees of censorship."

Follow the author of this article on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/splc-le...-social-media/

SPLC's release..Just in time for the election. How convenient. IMO


SPLC announces policy recommendations for social media, internet companies to fight hate online
October 24, 2018

The SPLC today announced the release of Change the Terms, a set of policy recommendations to help social media and other internet companies reduce hateful activities on their platforms.

Although a free and open internet creates immense social value, it can also be used to engage in hateful activities on a large scale. For example, white supremacist and other organizations that incite hate are using online platforms to organize, fund, recruit supporters for, and normalize racism, sexism, religious bigotry, as well as anti-LGBTQ and anti-immigrant animus, among other activities.

“Social media platforms have a tremendous impact because of their ability to amplify extreme ideas from the fringes,” said Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, one of the partners in the Change the Terms initiative. “The Southern Poverty Law Center has documented how hateful rhetoric online can turn into violence in real life, including the tragic events that we saw unfold in Charlottesville, Virginia, last year. Internet companies must do more to ensure that they are doing their part to combat extremism and hate, and take the threat of hate and extremism on their platforms more seriously.”

SPLC VIDEO AT LINK.

Hate activities on the internet discourage the online speech of the targeted groups, curb democratic participation, and threaten people’s safety and freedom in real life. While some companies are taking steps in the right direction to reduce hateful activities online, anti-hate provisions in most companies’ terms of service are not enough.

To ensure that companies are doing their part to help combat hateful conduct on their platforms, the SPLC and other organizations in this campaign will track the progress of major tech companies – especially social media platforms – to adopt and implement these model corporate policies. Then, in the following year, the organizations will provide report cards to those companies on both their policies and their execution of the policies.

The policies and the report, “Curbing Hate Online: What Companies Should Do Now,” shares what the organizations learned from meeting with experts on terrorism, human rights, and technology around the world, and includes recommended policies to help internet companies reduce hateful activities that are taking place on their platforms.

These recommended policies are based on the online tools and information that are available today. It is important to note that policies and approaches for addressing hateful activities will need to change along with the technologies and their uses. These changes will result from the lessons learned by internet companies and researchers who evaluate data on hateful activities online.

The Center for American Progress, Free Press, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Color of Change, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law are among a coalition of more than 40 groups that joined the SPLC in announcing the Change the Terms initiative.

“Coordinated online attacks by white supremacists have sparked violence in the offline world,” said Jessica González, deputy director and senior counsel at Free Press. “They also chill the online speech of those of us who are members of targeted groups, frustrating democratic participation in the digital marketplace of ideas and – even more importantly – threatening our safety and freedom in real life. Internet companies can no longer neglect how the hate speech of the few silences the voices and threatens the lives of the marginalized many."

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/...ht-hate-online

Schweizer: Stalin, Hitler, Mao 'Would Dream About' Google's Power Over Our Thoughts


https://static.pjmedia.com/user-cont...ed-50x50xf.png BY TYLER O'NEIL
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Google and Facebook have tremendous power to influence billions of people, without them even knowing it. An upcoming film documents how they can make companies rich, they can suppress information, and they can sway an election. They can even suggest thoughts and sway culture. This is the kind of power kings, emperors, and even dictators of yesteryear would envy, if they knew it existed.

"Throughout human history, tragically, leaders, ideologies, and belief systems have arisen that want to have total control over our lives, they want to remake human nature," Peter Schweizer, New York Times bestselling author and writer for the upcoming film "The Creepy Line," told PJ Media. He mentioned Benito Mussolini, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

"They all had police forces, they killed millions of people — tens of millions of people, in some cases," Schweizer noted. "I'm not suggesting companies like Facebook and Google do that, but these companies do have control or influence over us that those dictators and leaders would dream about."

"All the crude propaganda that they engaged in, the radio broadcasts, the leaflets, the sort of hypnotic speeches that they would give, pale in comparison with the ability for Google to nudge and to steer us in directions they want us to go and we don’t necessarily want to go," the author explained.

Facebook and Google "do that by sifting our information, determining what we see and what we don’t see, they also do that by censoring information, and they nudge us in directions that they want us to go."
"This is enormous power," Schweizer said. "It’s the sort of power of Big Brother in '1984,' and it’s the sort of power that these totalitarians from the last century would have loved and dreamed of having. They have power over the news and information that we get and the thoughts that we start to form."

"The film is called 'The Creepy Line' because we believe that Facebook and Google are doing things that are out of bounds with what we expect from companies," Schweizer explained. The phrase comes from a speech in which Eric Schmidt, then the CEO of Google, said his company likes to "get right up to the creepy line, but not cross it."

"They never define what the creepy line is, but our view and attitude is that they cross the creepy line all the time," he told PJ Media. "They have the ability to sway and influence people, and they admit this. They brag about it. It gives them a power over the control of information, it gives them the power of suggestion, and it gives them the power to have a dramatic effect on elections."

M.A. Taylor, director of "The Creepy Line," told PJ Media how this power works. He explained that Robert Epstein — a psychologist who earned his Ph.D. at Harvard — has extensively researched the search engine manipulation effect (SEME), discovering that Google's search engine "can actually sway your opinion."

"If I type a character in the search bar and suggestions come up, if they're all positive, they'll lead to positive web pages which will lead to a positive effect. If you have a negative in there, that negative is likely to get ten to fifteen times more clicks, bringing up negative pages," Taylor told PJ Media.

Google gives users ten search results on the first page, and it delivers them in ranks from one to ten, with the top result regarded as the most reliable. This involves two biases, Taylor explained. First, it has to sift through results to give the top ten, then it has to choose the most reliable result for number 1. Users want this ranking for the most reliable basic information for searches like, "What is the capital of France?"

"This becomes problematic when you talk about things like candidates or issues, because that algorithm has to make that decision about who's the best candidate or who should you vote for and things like that," Taylor said. "That's where it becomes problematic, because we don't really know what the algorithm is doing to give us these results."

Robert Epstein ran an experiment, using a search engine to measure the impact of bias on Americans who had no knowledge of a particular issue — like Australia's 2010 election, for example. "He thought it would be, we put all positive searches for one candidate, they'll shift two or three percent," the director said. "It actually shifted 48 percent."

Epstein first thought this huge result was a mistake, but he ran the study again, and the shift got bigger: 63 percent! He even figured out how to mask the bias by adding one positive search result for the other candidate into a list of results favoring his opponent.

The psychologist has run this experiment in India and with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. He found evidence of bias, and conservatives would not be surprised to find that the bias favored Hillary Clinton.

Google Exec Boasted About Helping Hillary Clinton by Boosting Latino Turnout in 2016

In the movie, Epstein told the story of his blacklisting by Google in 2012. On the very first day of that year, Google blacklisted his website, saying it had malware. It also cut off his access to the Internet — he could not even use Safari or Firefox to search the web.

Google also shut down the account of Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychology professor and bestselling author. In that incident, Peterson lost access to his email (going back 15 years), to his YouTube channel, to Internet maps, and more.

Google has the power to blacklist people and remove their access to the Internet. In the Information Age, that is the closet thing to absolute power.

Worse, it is a kind of power even more effective than the power of government.

"In the past, these governments have an inefficiency to them, they’re bureaucracies," the film's director, M.A. Taylor, told PJ Media. "These companies are not inefficient, they’re highly efficient, and they’re stocked full of the smartest people in the world."

Taylor did not only criticize these companies. He admitted that "Facebook and Google did a lot of great things. They connected people, they created amazing technologies." In fact, their products "work so well that they can determine elections around the world without anybody knowing it."

That said, the user is the product — Facebook and Google sell their users' information to companies and governments, enabling them to target users with specific ads. But this "surveillance model" of profit also gives the companies tremendous power, and knowledge of users' intimate details.

"They take your data and you get a free email. Here’s all my most intimate thoughts, and you get a free email," he explained. "It’s a terrible bargain that’s really not worth it, so I can find my way to a Starbucks on my phone."
Taylor argued that each user will have to "watch the watchers."

"We're the gasoline for these engines. Without our data to be sold ... Without us, what do they have? It's up to us to begin the conversation and start being more vigilant in our use of these platforms," he said.

"The Creepy Line" has had one screening each in New York City and Washington, D.C. I attended the screening on behalf of PJ Media, and interviewed both M.A. Taylor and Peter Schweizer on Facebook Live this morning.

Watch those videos below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqlDtjnwyPA

TWO ADDITIONAL VIDEOS AT THE LINK
https://pjmedia.com/trending/schweiz...-our-thoughts/

SPLC Leads Cuomo, DeBlasio in Condemning Proud Boys 'Hate' but Ignoring Antifa in NYC Brawl


https://static.pjmedia.com/user-cont...ed-50x50xf.png BY TYLER O'NEIL OCTOBER 17, 2018


https://static.pjmedia.com/trending/...-770x415xc.jpgNew York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (Photo by Albin Lohr-Jones via AP)


A brawl erupted Friday night between members of the violent group Proud Boys and Antifa. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-Left group that brands mainstream conservatives as "hate groups," focused on the Proud Boys and ignored the violence of Antifa, leading New York's liberal Democrats to do the same.

The SPLC has branded the Proud Boys a "hate group" and largely ignored the violence of Antifa, branding the masked thugs "protesters." The brawl took place after Gavin McInnes gave a speech featuring a plastic sword, re-enacting the execution of a Japanese socialist.

The Proud Boys is an organization dedicated to championing maleness and Western Civilization in a culture that increasingly demonizes both. Tragically, the organization encourages violence as a means for members to prove their manhood. Conservatives should condemn this tactic, just as liberals should condemn the tactics of Antifa. Proud Boys members have appeared at white nationalist rallies, although the organization has insisted that it does not support such views. The SPLC identified some of the Proud Boys thugs Friday as "skinheads," known white supremacists.

Sadly, the SPLC presented the clashes as entirely the fault of the Proud Boys, reporting Tuesday that "Those who were beaten appeared to be people who'd shown up to protest the event, although the attacks took place blocks away from the club."

While the SPLC linked to a bystander's video showing Proud Boys members beating up Antifa thugs, neither the SPLC report Saturday nor the one published Tuesday makes any mention of the N.Y.P.D. video showing masked Antifa thugs hurling a bottle at the Proud Boys before the fight ensued. While Proud Boys were rushing at Antifa, they may have started the fight.

On Friday at approx 8:23 pm there was an altercation which was widely distributed via social media on 82nd between Lexington to Park, here’s another angle of the video. We need your help identifying these individuals please contact @NYPDTips 800-577-TIPSpic.twitter.com/ndII6m0aLc
— NYPD NEWS (@NYPDnews) October 15, 2018

As The Wall Street Journal reported, Antifa robbed one of the Proud Boys members, and police arrested Antifa thugs in connection with the robbery. According to the SPLC, police arrested Antifa activists but not members of the "hate group." By reporting the situation this way, the SPLC suggested that New York police were biased in favor of the "hate group" and against the innocent "protesters."

Naturally, this one-sided view came out in statements from liberal politicians. The SPLC praised six New York politicians for echoing their concerns about the "hate group." Like the SPLC, the politicians conveniently forgot about Antifa.
"The bottom line is that I hold the President responsible for demonizing differences, fanning the flames of racism and division and creating a fire of hatred and violence," Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a statement calling the FBI to launch a "hate crimes" investigation into the incident. His statement referenced the SPLC's "hate group" label but left out any mention of Antifa.

"These vile acts of racism, division and discrimination are repugnant to American values, and have no place in our state," Cuomo added. "Why did this club invite the Proud Boys, a hate group with a history of inciting violence? Do you believe they have a positive contribution to the political dialogue at this time?"

In order for a crime to be considered a "hate crime" under New York law, a specific offense must be committed "targeting a victim because of a perception or belief about their race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation." The SPLC reported that Proud Boys members yelled, "Faggot!" and "He was a f*cking foreigner!"

Even so, this clash involved Left-wing Antifa thugs fighting Right-wing violent thugs. It seems less a case of violence targeted against someone due to national origin or sexual orientation and more a case of partisan violence between angry activists.

Cuomo was far from the only Democrat who condemned the Proud Boys without mentioning Antifa. New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood tweeted, "I'm disturbed and disgusted by last night's attacks involving the so-called 'Proud Boys.' Hate has no place in New York."

I'm disturbed and disgusted by last night's attacks involving the so-called "Proud Boys." Hate has no place in New York. This warrants immediate and thorough investigation by the NYPD to bring the perpetrators to justice. Anyone with information should call 1-800-577-TIPS.
— NY AG Underwood (@NewYorkStateAG) October 13, 2018

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that the N.Y.P.D. is "fully investigating" the "attack involving the Proud Boys." He added that "hate is never welcome in NYC and we will punish those responsible — whether they threw punches or incited violence — to the fullest extent of the law."

The NYPD is fully investigating last night’s attack involving the Proud Boys. If you know anything, the NYPD wants your help. Hate is never welcome in NYC and we will punish those responsible — whether they threw punches or incited violence — to the fullest extent of the law.
— Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) October 13, 2018

New York City Public Advocate Letitia James, the second-highest elected official in the city, unloaded on the Proud Boys. "I am disturbed and disgusted by the videos I've seen of members of the neo-fascist, white supremacist Proud Boys group engaging in hate-fueled mob violence on the streets of New York City," James declared in a statement.

"New York will not become the next Charlottesville, and we refuse to let the actions of a hateful few define our City," she added. "Given the clear homophobic and anti-immigrant sentiments expressed in the videos, I strongly encourage Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance to pursue hate crime charges in this matter."

Here is my statement following the violent attacks perpetrated by the “Proud Boys" white nationalist group in NYC last night: pic.twitter.com/wCFlgLt5Rt
— NYC Public Advocate (@NYCPA) October 13, 2018

New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, a gay man who has gone public with his HIV diagnosis, retweeted an SPLC tweet adding, "New York City will not tolerate this kind of hate. Hate is not welcome here."

Details are still emerging about what happened last night outside the Metropolitan Republican Club but initial reports and videos are disgusting and horrifying. New York City will not tolerate this kind of hate. Hate is not welcome here. https://t.co/PHZuLu5gtY
— NYC Council Speaker Corey Johnson (@NYCSpeakerCoJo) October 13, 2018

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer tweeted, "The NYPD must fully investigate this weekend’s abhorrent & hateful Proud Boys attack in the Upper East Side."

The NYPD must fully investigate this weekend’s abhorrent & hateful Proud Boys attack in the Upper East Side.

Tomorrow, I’ll stand with @NationalAction & faith, community and elected leaders to reject bigotry & violence.

Join us at 84th St & 3rd Ave at 5pm.
— Scott M. Stringer (@NYCComptroller) October 14, 2018

None of these public officials mentioned Antifa, who according to the N.Y.P.D. video may have started the brawl by throwing a glass bottle.


The violence of the Proud Boys has no place in public discourse, and neither does the violence of Antifa. In today's culture of demonizing men and Western Civilization, the Proud Boys stand for important things, but conservatives must stand firm against political violence.

Tragically, the SPLC redefines Antifa thugs as mere "protesters" while branding the violent Proud Boys more than just thugs but a "hate group." At least six prominent New York Democrats echoed their rhetoric, ignoring the presence and violence of Antifa.

New York may investigate this clash as a "hate crime" perpetrated by the Proud Boys, but it is actually something far worse. This political violence is a clash between true believers: where Antifa is willing to throw bottles and the Proud Boys are willing to keep beating up Antifa thugs while they're down.
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) warned in his new book "Them: Why We Hate Each Other — and How to Heal," that as Americans lose their close personal connections, they are seeking deeper meaning in politics. They turn politics into a battle between good and evil.

Both Antifa and the Proud Boys are doing this. Antifa sees everyone on the Right as a fascist, and the SPLC helps this view by redefining mainstream groups "hate groups." The Proud Boys rightly see cultural trends against men and against Western Civilization, but they choose violence in pushing back — and their willingness to welcome white supremacists is very concerning.

This kind of political violence is arguably a small civil war based on demonizing opponents. The SPLC has long egged on this kind of demonization that leads to violence, and its "hate map" inspired a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C.

If the SPLC wants to be taken seriously, it should accept the fact that if the Proud Boys is a "hate group" — a dubious position — then Antifa certainly is also a "hate group." Unfortunately, it seems Democrats are quite willing to repeat the SPLC's one-sided attacks.

Americans who support civility must condemn this kind of rhetoric. Political violence is a scourge on both sides, and both sides must condemn it.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/splc-le...-in-nyc-brawl/

See Also.

Up to 60 organizations may sue SPLC for defamation
June 20, 2018

Rick Moran
https://www.alipac.us/f19/up-60-orga...mation-359780/


Apple to Give Over $2M to Terror-Linked Group That Compares Christians to the KKK
BY TYLER O'NEILAUGUST 17, 2017

https://www.alipac.us/f9/apple-give-...ns-kkk-349888/

If you think the SPLC is Orwellian and Radical now; Imagine what it would be like with Crooked Hillary at the Helm