The Southern Poverty Law Center's Cozy Relationship With the Federal Government Threatens to Chill Free Speech

The Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia is facing pressure from authoritarian leftists to cancel an event hosted by the parental rights group Moms For Liberty after it was labeled a “hate group” by social justice groups and a state senator. The organization’s sold-out summit is scheduled to be held in late June at the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, with the museum hosting the opening day reception.

Despite opposition from some museum staff and activists, the museum has decided not to cancel the event, stating that rejecting visitors based on ideology would be antithetical to its purpose of fostering understanding within a democratic society. Activists have also targeted the Marriott, calling on the hotel chain to refuse to host the event.

AnonOpsUnited, a left-wing activist group, posted a tweet claiming that Moms for Liberty spreads “bigotry, hate, and messages of violence” and advocated for its followers to contact the hotel chain and urge them to cancel the event.

Color of Change posted a tweet referring to Moms for Liberty as a “far-right, extremist group” and claimed the Philadelphia Marriott plans to provide them “a space and platform to spew their anti-Black and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric.”

This comes only weeks after the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization that pretends to care about the plight of “marginalized” people, labeled Moms for Liberty an “extremist” hate group. The organization placed the parental rights advocacy group on the same list on which they refer to the Ku Klux Klan and various neo-Nazi outfits.

The SPLC has come under fire on several occasions for falsely labeling run-of-the-mill right-leaning organizations and individuals as dangerous extremists. It has even been sued for these deceptive practices.

The SPLC has always billed itself as a watchdog against hate and extremism. However, its suspected collaboration with the U.S. government raises questions about potential abuses of power and infringement on civil liberties. The close ties between the SPLC and government agencies, including the White House and the Department of Justice (DOJ), have created a problematic dynamic that threatens free speech and undermines the principles of justice and fairness.

Recent revelations indicate that the SPLC has exerted a troubling level of influence on government decision-making. The organization’s controversial “hate map,” which categorizes numerous conservative and Christian organizations as hate groups, has been used by federal agencies, including the FBI, to guide their investigations and policy decisions.

You might remember the controversy over an FBI memo suggesting that the agency infiltrate Catholic groups over fears of terrorist threats. The author of the document referred to the SPLC’s hate map as a resource in building the case for such an action. By effectively labeling dissenting voices as extremists, the SPLC has contributed to a chilling effect on free speech and stifled legitimate debate on important issues. This is precisely the group’s objective.

The Biden administration’s collaboration with the SPLC has raised serious concerns about potential bias and political motivations. The administration’s LGBT strategy explicitly cited the SPLC’s work, lending credibility to its flawed categorization of parental rights groups like Moms for Liberty as “antigovernment extremist groups.”

This alignment between the White House and the SPLC creates a dangerous environment where government actions are influenced by a hyper-partisan organization, undermining the rights of individuals and groups with differing viewpoints. This isn’t about protecting vulnerable people. This is about shutting down views that are contrary to the hard left.

The SPLC’s classification of parental rights organizations as hate groups is particularly disturbing on numerous levels. Parents who voice concerns about controversial school policies have been targeted, their actions likened to domestic terrorism. This characterization not only undermines the legitimacy of parental concerns but also poses a threat to the fundamental rights of individuals to engage in civic discourse. Using the power of the state to target and intimidate concerned parents sets a dangerous precedent and erodes trust in democratic institutions.

Given the severity of the issues at hand, it is crucial that the relationship between the SPLC and the government be thoroughly examined and addressed. Several Republican candidates, including Scott Parkinson and Jonathan Emord in Virginia, have pledged to investigate the SPLC’s influence on federal law enforcement agencies if elected. This is what Republicans in Congress should be doing already. It seems obvious that there is a connection between the SPLC and the government – and the purpose of this collaboration is not positive – especially for those who support the free expression of ideas.


Trending on RedState Videos