蜜桃传媒

Editor鈥檚 Note: The ongoing on the 蜜桃传媒, originally framed last month to suggest that the 蜜桃传媒 bore responsibility for a shooting at the because it had earlier named the FRC a 鈥渉ate group,鈥� has continued to expand to the point of absurdity. That was shown again last Friday, when Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel that any media that cited the 蜜桃传媒鈥檚 hate group listings 鈥渨ill also have blood on its hands.鈥� What follows is a response to the original criticism launched by the FRC.

Do words have consequences?

For years, we at the Southern Poverty Law Center (蜜桃传媒) that they do. When conspiracy-minded Islamophobes claim that Muslims have a secret plan to force America into a medieval-style caliphate, Muslims in the streets get hurt. When angry nativists assert that Mexicans are plotting to 鈥渞econquer鈥� the Southwest, some Americans respond by attacking Latinos.

And when the religious right spreads false and defamatory propaganda like the completely that gay men molest children at rates far higher than their heterosexual counterparts, LGBT people end up, much more frequently than most people realize, at the wrong end of a baseball bat.

For the last three weeks, the 蜜桃传媒 has been under attack by a number of groups that fit into that last category. After an apparently politically motivated man at the Family Resource Council (FRC) in Washington, these groups launched a coordinated assault on the 蜜桃传媒, accusing it of responsibility in the attack because it had

At a well-attended press conference the day after the Aug. 15 shooting, FRC President Tony Perkins said that the alleged attacker, Floyd Corkins, 鈥渨as given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.鈥� He added, 鈥淚 believe the Southern Poverty Law should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology.鈥�

A day later, Islam-basher and Obama-hater Jerry Boykin, Perkin鈥檚 recently hired deputy at FRC, took his boss鈥� rhetoric . The 蜜桃传媒, Boykin said, is an 鈥渁nti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, Marxist organization鈥� staffed by 鈥渁n evil group of people鈥� who are 鈥渄angerous.鈥�

The idea seemed to be that the 蜜桃传媒 was hypocritical 鈥斅爐hat after years of suggesting that organizations that demonize minority groups are ultimately contributing to violence against those groups, the 蜜桃传媒 had been caught doing exactly what it criticized in others. We had 鈥渞ecklessly鈥� labeled the FRC as a hate group merely, as Perkins told Fox News, 鈥渂ecause we defend the family and stand for traditional, orthodox Christianity.鈥�

Did Perkins have a point? Was the 蜜桃传媒鈥檚 criticism morally or functionally equivalent to the conduct we criticized, admittedly in harsh terms, coming from the FRC and like groups?

I think not. The 蜜桃传媒鈥檚 listing of the FRC and several of its allies as hate groups was not based on its opposition to same-sex marriage or its belief that the Bible describes homosexual sex as a sin, as Perkins claims. As we when we began listing them in 2010, and have repeated on countless occasions since, we were calling out these groups 鈥渂ased on their propagation of known falsehoods 鈥� claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities 鈥� and repeated, groundless name-calling.鈥�

What kinds of falsehoods? Demonizing lies like the claim that gay men routinely molest children 鈥� that pedophilia, as Perkins once said, 鈥渋s a homosexual problem.鈥� And lest the FRC claim otherwise, this is no one-time claim; the group has made this assertion repeatedly, in slightly different forms, for years. It once even claimed that gay activists seek 鈥渢o normalize sex with children鈥� and 鈥渢o eventually recognize pedophiles as the 鈥榩rophets鈥� of a new sexual order.鈥�

The oft-repeated pedophilia charge is utterly bogus. 鈥淒espite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are,鈥� says the American Psychological Association, one of many scientific groups to point this out. Elsewhere, the APA adds, 鈥淭here is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents鈥� gay, lesbian or bisexual friends or acquaintances.鈥�

And what kinds of name-calling? The FRC regularly portrays LGBT people as sick, evil, perverted, and a danger to the nation. It talks about their 鈥渄ark, perverse鈥� ways and their 鈥渟ordid sex lives.鈥� It attacks their 鈥渢ransient, promiscuous and unfaithful relationships,鈥� and insists that gay people are 鈥渇undamentally incapable鈥� of providing good homes for children 鈥� a claim flatly contradicted by virtually all relevant scientific authorities. Gay rights activists, Perkins said in 2011, are 鈥渋ntolerant,鈥� 鈥渉ateful鈥� and 鈥渧ile,鈥� and are pursuing an 鈥渁genda鈥� that 鈥渨ill destroy them and our nation.鈥� An FRC official has said he wanted to 鈥渆xport homosexuals from the United States.鈥� That same official, speaking on national television in 2010, advocated the criminalizing of gay sex.

Do these kinds of words have consequences?

The 蜜桃传媒 recently . We found that gay people were twice as likely to be attacked in a violent hate crime as black or Jewish people; more than four times as likely as Muslims; and even more likely than that compared to Latinos or whites. While it鈥檚 impossible to prove that the violence is related to any particular verbal attack, it seems obvious that public demonization of a discrete minority does help to legitimize the attacks.

Words do have consequences. But is the FRC鈥檚 propaganda and schoolyard name-calling really the same thing as the 蜜桃传媒 listing the FRC as a hate group? Is suggesting that gay men are child molesters 鈥� one of the worst things you can say about a human being today 鈥� really the same as making a fact-based criticism of a particular group?

The answer seems obvious. Pointing out the lies and slander of the FRC and some of its friends in the interest of attempting to bring some measure of civility to our political dialogue is not remotely the same as promulgating those lies. The idea that the activities of the FRC are equivalent to those of the 蜜桃传媒 is simply more propaganda from an organization that specializes in propaganda.