![]() ![]() ![]() “SPLC’s anti-immigrant hate group designation is not capable of being proved false, but is an opinion expressed as part of a political debate,” the organization argued. SPLC attorneys said the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee protects opinions, so the organization cannot be held liable for defamation. King’s case, the SPLC has acknowledged that its labels are less science and more a political argument. “Conservatives who have faced routine defamation may finally get some justice, and the American people may finally see behind the curtain how the SPLC runs its ‘hate group’ scam.” ![]() “This is the very first defamation lawsuit specifically challenging the SPLC’s ‘hate group’ accusation to make it to discovery,” Mr. To prevail, he must prove that the SPLC was wrong and showed “actual malice” in making the claims.īut Tyler O’Neil, author of “Making Hate Pay,” an examination of the SPLC, called the judge’s ruling “monumental.” Defamation cases are almost impossible to win, particularly for those deemed “public figures,” as Mr. “Plaintiffs have ‘nudged’ their defamation claims - premised on SPLC’s designation of DIS as an ‘anti-immigrant hate group’ - ‘across the line from conceivable to plausible,’” Judge Watkins wrote. King should have a chance to develop his case and seek more evidence against the SPLC through discovery. Keith Watkins refused in a ruling last week. The SPLC asked a judge to toss the case, but U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |