3 ms·
I know the SPLC has paid out in defamation suits rather than allow the cases to go to trial. Pretty good sign they knew they'd lose as it has severely hurt thei
by merpnderp 7y ago
I know the SPLC has paid out in defamation suits rather than allow the cases to go to trial. Pretty good sign they knew they'd lose as it has severely hurt their reputation.
Here's a particularly egregious case where a UN affiliated group was labeled an extremist hate group and the SPLC wouldn't relent even after evidence was presented: https://www.newsweek.com/splc-nawaz-million-apologizes-981879 https://www.newsweek.com/splc-nawaz-million-apologizes-98187...
- cortesoft 7y agoIt sounds like they did relent? It doesn't say anything about them refusing to relent after evidence was presented. It seems like they made a mistake in this case, clearly, but I don't know if you can extrapolate from that that they acted in bad faith.
- merpnderp 7y agoThey relented as part of a multimillion dollar payout. Relenting under threat of legal action, isn't acting in good faith. Good faith is receiving the very first email and being "oh, my bad, let me fix that for you."
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- htfu 7y agoHow to you go from SPLC backing down after '"human rights advocates affiliated with the United Nations" praised Nawaz's work.' to Quilliam being UN affiliated, and SPLC not backing down? At least read your own link, please. I get what you're saying about the settlement but they could've just paid out and not gone to such lengths explaining how they felt they'd gotten things wrong.
- merpnderp 7y agoCould they have, or was an apology a part of the settlement? We'll never know - but since it got to the point of a settlement, I'm betting the apology was a requirement of avoiding court.