The SPLC indictment begs the question: Where do you stand on the use of paid informants? Let's look at the history of the FBI and the SPLC, and ask the right questions.
This makes me wonder where the line is between being a "State Actor" (where Constitutional protections are lost) and a private entity.
SCOTUS has said that the line typical is when an entity is engaging in acts "traditionally reserved to government".
Would paying informants to commit crimes, for prosecution of an organization, be something "traditionally reserved to government"? Especially under the association with the FBI...
This seems to fall under the policing powers of the executive branch.
I wonder if this does bridge that gap, then what constitutional protections does that remove from the SPLC. I imagine it makes all of their records public domain at the very least...
This is such a great point to consider! The State Actor Doctrine is generally very narrowly applied, but maybe the joint work between the SPLC and FBI would fall under that. And if that's the case, is the SPLC now limited by the Constitution? Like with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? And to go a bit further...would the FBI be in violation of those amendments for working with the SPLC if the SPLC is found to have violated them?
And yes, a whole separate conversation would be whether some kind of disclosure obligations would be applicable to SPLC. Although that's going very deep into it, and likely would be hard to argue.
I have so many more questions that I don't have a opinion yet. For me, the central question is what is entrapment? If an entity funds a group with the expressed intent of planning and excecuting crimes, is that legal and defensible or is it prodding the commission of crimes that otherwise would not have been committed? Is this yet another example of using funds to manufacture events to serve the purposes of others? Who profits? Is the FBI complicit if the SPLC improperly infiltrated and coaxed these organizations to commit crimes given their past relationships? I'm conflicted and have many biases so I eagerly anticipate the evidence and ruling of this case.
This makes me wonder where the line is between being a "State Actor" (where Constitutional protections are lost) and a private entity.
SCOTUS has said that the line typical is when an entity is engaging in acts "traditionally reserved to government".
Would paying informants to commit crimes, for prosecution of an organization, be something "traditionally reserved to government"? Especially under the association with the FBI...
This seems to fall under the policing powers of the executive branch.
I wonder if this does bridge that gap, then what constitutional protections does that remove from the SPLC. I imagine it makes all of their records public domain at the very least...
This is such a great point to consider! The State Actor Doctrine is generally very narrowly applied, but maybe the joint work between the SPLC and FBI would fall under that. And if that's the case, is the SPLC now limited by the Constitution? Like with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? And to go a bit further...would the FBI be in violation of those amendments for working with the SPLC if the SPLC is found to have violated them?
And yes, a whole separate conversation would be whether some kind of disclosure obligations would be applicable to SPLC. Although that's going very deep into it, and likely would be hard to argue.
I have so many more questions that I don't have a opinion yet. For me, the central question is what is entrapment? If an entity funds a group with the expressed intent of planning and excecuting crimes, is that legal and defensible or is it prodding the commission of crimes that otherwise would not have been committed? Is this yet another example of using funds to manufacture events to serve the purposes of others? Who profits? Is the FBI complicit if the SPLC improperly infiltrated and coaxed these organizations to commit crimes given their past relationships? I'm conflicted and have many biases so I eagerly anticipate the evidence and ruling of this case.
I have so many questions, too! This article covered only a small segment of the bigger questions this indictment brings up.
I am very curious about the entrapment side of it as well, because the FBI has been doing this for decades.