|
|
Post by timoneill on Sept 27, 2016 20:55:29 GMT
Dr. Richard Carrier Has Sued Several Atheists and Their Blogging Networks on Charges of Defamation"He asks for $500,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages for each of the two counts of defamation and $50,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages for interfering with his business — for a total of $2,100,000. He also wants an injunction against the named bloggers and everyone in their networks from publishing or republishing the “false and defamatory Narrative.”"
|
|
|
|
Post by ydoethur on Sept 29, 2016 6:20:34 GMT
Dr. Richard Carrier Has Sued Several Atheists and Their Blogging Networks on Charges of Defamation"He asks for $500,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages for each of the two counts of defamation and $50,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages for interfering with his business — for a total of $2,100,000. He also wants an injunction against the named bloggers and everyone in their networks from publishing or republishing the “false and defamatory Narrative.”" Reckless of him. As David Irving found out the hard way, the best form of defence is to prove the allegations. So far, although Carrier has been heavily criticised nobody has lodged an actual complaint. But if they prove their allegations in court he would be in big, big trouble. It's difficult as well to see how he would be able to prove malice as required in an American court. For example, he was not 'removed' from FTB, he left of his own volition after his posting rights were temporarily suspended. Therefore it is unlikely any judge or jury will back up his claim that he was 'removed' in a direct attempt to sabotage his business. Even having studied Carrier's work and considered its major flaws in some depth, I have watched this car crash with bemusement. Examples include him making a counter-allegation of sexual assault against him by somebody else not directly involved in the original claims, and a lawyer's letter that seemed not to know the difference between a civil tort and a criminal offence (that crack you made about 'the sharpest legal minds a guy who barely clears $25,000 a year can afford' seems to have been all too horribly true). If Carrier were determined to utterly destroy the few rags of credibility and dignity he has, he could scarce be doing better. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Sept 29, 2016 8:01:43 GMT
Dr. Richard Carrier Has Sued Several Atheists and Their Blogging Networks on Charges of Defamation"He asks for $500,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages for each of the two counts of defamation and $50,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages for interfering with his business — for a total of $2,100,000. He also wants an injunction against the named bloggers and everyone in their networks from publishing or republishing the “false and defamatory Narrative.”" Reckless of him. As David Irving found out the hard way, the best form of defence is to prove the allegations. So far, although Carrier has been heavily criticised nobody has lodged an actual complaint. But if they prove their allegations in court he would be in big, big trouble. It's difficult as well to see how he would be able to prove malice as required in an American court. For example, he was not 'removed' from FTB, he left of his own volition after his posting rights were temporarily suspended. Therefore it is unlikely any judge or jury will back up his claim that he was 'removed' in a direct attempt to sabotage his business. Even having studied Carrier's work and considered its major flaws in some depth, I have watched this car crash with bemusement. Examples include him making a counter-allegation of sexual assault against him by somebody else not directly involved in the original claims, and a lawyer's letter that seemed not to know the difference between a civil tort and a criminal offence (that crack you made about 'the sharpest legal minds a guy who barely clears $25,000 a year can afford' seems to have been all too horribly true). If Carrier were determined to utterly destroy the few rags of credibility and dignity he has, he could scarce be doing better. Some of the comments on Mehta's posting from people literate in US law are worth reading, particularly those by "Nullifidian". For example: "As a practical principle, he does need to prove his innocence. If he can't establish that the charges are actually false, then the principle that truth is an absolute defense against libel will cause the case to break down as soon as people start testifying in court that he sexually harassed them. If such people exist—and I have no reason to believe that there aren't any people who perceived their interactions with him as harassing—and Carrier can't establish his innocence, then the preponderance of the evidence (the standard used in civil cases) will be in defendants' favor. It might be a hypothetical possibility on a law school exam that someone could argue that the charges made against them might be true but made so recklessly that it amounted to defamation, but in practical terms that kind of argument will not prevail. If Carrier thinks he can just go "nuh uh!" and win a defamation suit with it, then he and his lawyer (whose filing reminded me of Lionel Hutz, to be honest) have got a surprise in their future.
That said, I'm dubious that it will even get to the point of delving into the truth or falsity of the claims about his harassment and "boundary-pushing". I think the defendants will prevail on the principle that what they wrote was non-actionable opinion. The lawyer didn't actually forestall that argument in his filing, which suggests that he knows he can't. All he did was cite two internet resources suggesting—but not mandating—that one should get both sides of the story, and insinuating that failure to do so was evidence of actual malice. Here the word "alleged" is absolutely called for, because there's no way to characterize that claim except as an "alleged argument"."I loved the reference to Lionel Hutz - I guess that's the quality of legal representation you get when you earn less than $25k per annum. There is some speculation from "Nullifidian" and others that Carrier's suit will immediately run afoul of American anti-SLAPP provisions (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation - basically a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence), though it's not clear if the fact that he is lodging from his new home in Ohio (which has no anti-SLAPP legislation) means he is safe on that front. But the affidavits that Carrier has lodged in support of his suit make for fascinating reading: Skepticon ResponseRichard Carrier AffidavitDana Carol Fredsti AffidavitDavid Fitzgerald AffidavitSpencer Hawkins AffidavitHeina Dadabhoy EmailsLauren Lane EmailsLeaving aside some of the more lurid details (and I'm sure I didn't need the mental image of what went on in the hotel room shared by Carrier and his acolyte David Fitzgerald), how Carrier thinks some of that material bolsters his case is beyond me. Several here and elsewhere have noted how this guy's severe narcissism means that he is often socially oblivious to the point of cluelessness. Several of these documents demonstrate this clearly, showing an immature egoist who simply doesn't understand where relevant boundaries lie. The exchange of e-mails with Henia Dadabhoy in particular show just how socially tin-eared this person is, yet he seems to include it to show that he knows when to back off. I'm sure this suit will die a quiet death pretty soon, though the US legal system never ceases to amaze. Thomas Smith from the "Atheistically Speaking" podcast is getting a lawyer friend of his to look at the whole sorry mess from a legal point of view later this week, so that may help observers like me for whom that aspect is a mystery. In the meantime, this is real popcorn-munching stuff ...  |
|
|
|
Post by ydoethur on Sept 30, 2016 6:02:58 GMT
He also doesn't appear to understand that merely because sexual activity may have been consensual at one time doesn't mean he wasn't later guilty of harassment if he pushed on with a relationship the other party wanted it to end.
As you say, those other emails could easily be considered proof that he did sexually harass various women.
As for his claim for damages, it's rather hard to see how a 47 year old with a low income and limited potential for future earnings (given he was unemployable even before this case) can believe he's suffered potential losses on that scale. I earn double what he does, my publication record is actually respectable if hardly exceptional and I'm 15 years younger than he is, but my future earnings potential would barely clear 75% of that.
However this is a man who repeatedly claimed Irving never denied the Holocaust, that his work had demonstrated Hitler was a Christian and that he had revolutionised work in that field, that he has training in Bayesian statistics and is no less a philosopher than Aristotle or Hume, not to mention somebody who discusses his masturbatory habits on feminist blogs about the dangers of rape. Perhaps sense and goodness and self-awareness are not his long suits.
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Sept 30, 2016 8:18:12 GMT
Here's the "Atheistically Speaking" podcast with lawyer Andrew Torrez. It's an hour long, so the short version is that he thinks Carrier has a snowflake's chance in Hell of winning this case. |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 1, 2016 15:29:53 GMT
(and I'm sure I didn't need the mental image of what went on in the hotel room shared by Carrier and his acolyte David Fitzgerald) Gives a whole new level of meaning to this, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by ydoethur on Jun 19, 2018 19:24:16 GMT
If anyone would like a further chuckle at Carrier's expense, may I recommend this transcript: www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ohsd.196941/gov.uscourts.ohsd.196941.41.0.pdfBe warned it lasts 125 pages. For me the favourite moment is a tough call. I'd say it would have to be one of: the moment he forgets what university he was at; the moment he attempts to lecture an attorney on the law of evidence; or the moment he haughtily describes himself as a philosopher only to be withered with the retort that if so he is actually (after Mel Brooks) a 'bull**** artist' (the forum won't let me use the actual word in question)! |
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Jun 20, 2018 1:35:06 GMT
My favorite bit is on page 28-29 when Randazza wants to know who told Carrier that his legal expenses were tax deductible. As one might expect, RC has a high opinion of his own expertise as an accountant. My impression is that RC is telling the truth, and he does not understand how his behaviour could come across as creepy. |
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Oct 22, 2018 9:43:59 GMT
So, how is this all going?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Oct 22, 2018 17:09:26 GMT
Not seen anything online in the last few months. Interestingly, net apologist (and long term Carrier opponent) JP Holding did a bit of digging and has noticed one REALLY big problem with Carrier's lawsuit that hadn't occurred to me: |
|
|
|
Post by ydoethur on Oct 30, 2018 19:09:30 GMT
This is the most recent update I know of: youtu.be/n69yleebaUcA couple of points spring to mind: 1) Myers was an idiot to restate his case like that and state opinion as fact. However, it was understandable and since he wasn't saying anything particularly new it's hard to imagine it will make much difference; 2) Carrier now having the support of a rich mythicist will likely see this case go the distance, as he will be reluctant to settle and if (as seems likely) he is just after the money or the publicity he is now effectively in a zero-sum game. Myers also looks disinclined to settle and indeed may be unable to afford to. However it could take another two or three years for it all to come to trial; 3) I can't agree with Myers that his lawyer is competent. He's overlooking what seem to me to be some pretty obvious lines of attack. For example, Carrier claiming that all his (named) books were published by reputable presses, when only one of them was, in his filing should have been grounds to at least ask for summary dismissal. I also thought that while he picked on some obvious points in his interrogation of Carrier he was on the whole pretty cosy and let some others go. I would say Carrier has a fifty-fifty chance of winning this. He shouldn't, as outlined many times in many ways. It is in fact a classic Carrier case - fitting facts to a predetermined conclusion, rather than the other way around. But he might just be lucky if the judge is very weak or lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Nov 15, 2018 10:34:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 15, 2018 15:45:53 GMT
I love this line. That is appropriate on so many levels. |
|
|
|
Post by ydoethur on Nov 15, 2018 20:46:30 GMT
That is probably a very good result for Carrier. It means he won't have people testify about his behaviour in open court, or awkward questions asked about these 'numerous' scholarly books he has published. However, as it is Carrier I doubt if he's going to see it that way...will he question the judge's sanity? Edit - no it's even better than that, he's going to try and sue in every state individually: friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/11/15/judge-dismisses-richard-carriers-defamation-lawsuit-against-atheist-bloggers/However, if the comment above is correct, he cannot do it due to statute of limitations. Sometimes you wish even people like Carrier would, just for their own sake, accept reality. Oh, and Myers is pulling no punches: youtu.be/WRgHdkNKpAI |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 15, 2018 23:54:18 GMT
That part seems to have been removed from the post now. |
|
