Anonymous wrote:

If you’re not clear on what’s going on with this SLPC thing, the federal prosecutors believe that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the SLPC was, among other things, funding the various organizations that it then cited to justify its own fundraising.

In other words, it’s accused of funding white supremacist groups, and then pointing to these white supremacist groups to get people to give it money. That’s not “paying informants.” That’s a massive fraud.

Anonymous wrote:The question is did they do more than inform? Were they paid to plan and purchase transportation, for example?

Anonymous wrote:The question is did they do more than inform? Were they paid to plan and purchase transportation, for example?

Anonymous wrote:The question is did they do more than inform? Were they paid to plan and purchase transportation, for example?

Anonymous wrote:Exposing informants to protect white nationalists is certainly the role of government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see if other orgs who pay informants (e.g., Project Veritas) are subjected to the same scrutiny.

I hope so. That having been said, I suspect the SDLC’s use is orders of magnitude higher. But this is a super sketchy practice and should be closely scrutinized regardless of who does it or the magnitude.

I'm not legal expert, but it seems to me that helping plan a rally and orchestrating the transportation goes beyond being an "informant."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they paid informants, how else would they get so much insider information? Right-wing extremists are notorious for informing on each other over ideological differences or plain old greed. Most people move up the ranks to grift this gullible base so why not get additional income as an informant?

Because it provides very wrong incentives to informants. If your income depends on you seeing things, you are going to see those things. This is particularly true in the shady world of informants.

I’m honestly kind of shocked at all the left-leaning people who are excusing the practice of paying informants and then going even further and using that paid information to fundraise, regardless of the accuracy of the information and regardless of the larger social impact. If Turning Point USA (say) was doing the same thing in reverse, there would be howls of fury and attempts to bring criminal charges. It is okay to say that SPLC is in the wrong here. Just because it’s an organization on your side doesn’t mean it can’t and shouldn’t be indicted.

It’s the sign the organization has lost its way entirely, and I say that as a donor.

Are you against law enforcement paying informants?

You're actually comparing the SPLC to law enforcement when the latter is trying to arrest and detain criminals ?

According to you, it’s unreliable information…therefore worse if done by law enforcement.

You seem deeply confused. Law enforcement pays informants for information, but that use is regulated by the many laws we have on policing. Furthermore, the information is then used for criminal prosecution and proceedings where the accuracy of the information matters, so informants who provide false information are both less useful to law enforcement and also subject to criminal prosecution themselves. Therefore, the motivations of the informants is going to be entirely different and the information itself will be subject to higher scrutiny.

SPLC has no level of scrutiny on the information it obtained, no legal obligations to comply with, and no restrictions on use of information obtained. Informants didn’t need to fear repercussion for providing false information, and in fact their only motivation was to continue getting paid. It’s appalling behavior from SPLC and calls into question most of their work over the past decade or so. I’m never going to donate again, and I hope this is fully prosecuted. The indictment is both detailed and very alarming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see if other orgs who pay informants (e.g., Project Veritas) are subjected to the same scrutiny.

I hope so. That having been said, I suspect the SDLC’s use is orders of magnitude higher. But this is a super sketchy practice and should be closely scrutinized regardless of who does it or the magnitude.

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see if other orgs who pay informants (e.g., Project Veritas) are subjected to the same scrutiny.