Quantcast

«

»

Sep 21 2011

I Want David Barton To Sue ME!

As a number of other blogs have reported, David Barton has filed a defamation lawsuit against Judy Jennings and Rebecca Bell-Metereau, two former candidates for the Texas State Board of Education back in 2010, and a writer named W.S. Smith, who wrote an article on examiner.com titled “Exposing David Barton,” also back in 2010.

Barton is going after Jennings and Bell-Metereau over a YouTube campaign ad that said he has spoken to white supremacist groups (which is true), and Smith for calling him an admitted liar, referring to that list of “Unconfirmed Quotations” he put out after being called on his use of spurious quotes.

The question here is why Barton is going after these particular people over these particular statements at this particular time. None of these people said anything that hasn’t been said many times before by other, much more prolific Barton critics, and neither the campaign ad nor the examiner.com article even caused a blip on the radar screen. Why isn’t Barton going after PFAW’s Right Wing Watch, or Americans United, or ME?

I’m feeling a bit left out here. I’ve worked very hard to spread the word that Barton is a liar. I even wrote a whole book calling him a liar, have put out countless blog posts and videos calling him a liar, and have called him a liar on a national cable news show. What else do I have to do to get him to sue ME?

I only got a consolation prize in his lawsuit. I am mentioned in it, if only by my last name, because W.S. Smith mentioned me and linked to my website in his examiner.com article, saying of my videos, “Rodda discusses her brief meeting with Barton and his subsequent lies about her, their meeting and what she believes. In the videos she systematically tears down the wall built by Barton and exposes his lies for what they are,” a statement that is quoted in the lawsuit.

So I ask again, what else do I have to do to get Barton to sue ME? Suggestions anyone?

17 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    chigau (違う)

    Faked-up pictures on the internet.
    Something with goats.

  2. 2
    Ed Brayton

    That’s how I feel when PZ posts some of the crazy hate mail he gets. Like hey, what about me? I’ve earned it too!

  3. 3
    blindrobin

    Perhaps he doesn’t expect much of a fight from those he is attacking, whereas in attacking you or PFAW he would have definitely chosen a real fight.

  4. 4
    raven

    These suits are SLAPP suits. Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. Usually, it is an intimidation tactic and the plaintiff really has no interest in actually going to court.

    In most states, the loser pays court costs and your attorney’s fees.

    The truth is an absolute defense.

    Barton will lose, being the serial, prolific, public liar he is, assuming it does go to court. Then what? He will be a proven liar after a legal trial.

  5. 5
    raven

    So I ask again, what else do I have to do to get Barton to sue ME? Suggestions anyone?

    That is a tough one. There is a line of people begging Barton to sue them these days. I suppose you will just have to take a number.

    1. Write another book of his lies. You should be able to come up with a new volume every year or so.

    2. A better idea is to volunteer to serve as an expert witness in any civil trials Barton initiates. You wrote your book, Liars for jesus after all, so the evidence is already in existence.

    Who knows, since loser pays court costs in SLAPP suits, maybe you can bill Barton for your time and testimony.

  6. 6
    raven

    “Rodda discusses her brief meeting with Barton and his subsequent lies about her, their meeting and what she believes. In the videos she systematically tears down the wall built by Barton and exposes his lies for what they are,” a statement that is quoted in the lawsuit.

    Chris, what is this all about? What happened? “and his subsequent lies about her, their meeting and what she believes.” I don’t watch internet videos very often for a few reasons.

  7. 7
    Chris Rodda

    He was talking about the 9-part video I made after Barton bashed me on his radio show back in 2009. At the time he wrote the article, these videos were on the homepage of my website. I have newer videos on the homepage now, but the ones referred to in the article are still on my site. Just go to http://www.liarsforjesus.com and scroll down to the end of the videos on the homepage. You’ll see a link that says “OLDER VIDEOS” right below the videos that are there now. That link goes to a page with the videos that were on the homepage at the time the article was written, and has a little explanation of what happened.

  8. 8
    Avery Thompson

    Punch him in the face.

  9. 9
    sqlrob

    The truth is an absolute defense.

    Regrettably, that’s not true

  10. 10
    Aliasalpha

    Well if you want him to make a laughable attempt to throw the book at you, maybe you should kick it off by throwing your book at him in some kind of driveby incident, a weird cross between a bookmobile and paperboy

  11. 11
    alanb

    @sqlrob,

    Please note the following from Wikipedia:

    Noonan v. Staples[27] is sometimes cited as precedent that truth is not always a defense to libel, but the case is actually not valid precedent on that issue because for some reason Staples didn’t argue First Amendment protection for its statements. (see footnote at bottom of page 15 of the courts decision) The courts often don’t decide cases on issues not argued by the parties, and thus the court assumed for the sake of that particular case that the Massachusetts law was constitutional under the First Amendment.

  12. 12
    raven

    google captures:

    Online Defamation Law | Electronic Frontier Foundation
    w 2.eff.org › Our Work › Free Speech › Bloggers’ Rights – CachedSimilar
    Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation. …

    Is truth a defense to defamation claims? Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. …

    This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the …
    Libel And Slander: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law
    w ww.enotes.com › Law and Politics › Encyclopedia of Everyday Law – CachedSimilar

    Libel And Slander: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law. …

    There are four general defenses to slander and libel. Truth is an absolute defense.

    Consent by the … In 1964, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of The New York Times v. …

    Re Truth is an absolute defense. My reading of the case law and a google search indicates this is generally correct. It certainly has a long history of being a winning defense.

  13. 13
    Parse

    Ed Brayton: That’s how I feel when PZ posts some of the crazy hate mail he gets. Like hey, what about me? I’ve earned it too!

    It just means you need to dial your email’s crazy quotient up to 11, or higher. PZ only recognizes the best of the best of the unhinged emails, and it’s a crowded field these days. </deliberate misunderstanding>

    As to how to get Barton to sue, well, you need to make him think he’s got a chance of winning. As BlindRobin says, he’s going after soft targets, and with all your footnotes, documentation, and legal support, you’re about as soft as the Death Star with ventilation shaft grilles. Try publishing the first edition of Liars for Jesus 2: Electric Boogaloo under a pseudonym, and wait for him to bite.

  14. 14
    Jason Thibeault

    I agree with other commenters — Barton has no intention of going after anyone with the truth on their side and a stomach to fight. This has SLAPP written all over it. Looking for the perceived weaker targets that he hopes to settle with, making it seem like he’s winning the PR battle over his image.

  15. 15
    4theist4narchist

    Speaking on behalf of my blog, “David Barton is a liar, liar, liar!” Now it’s on the record.
    –Ben

  16. 16
    oneofthewatchers

    You tell him, Chris!

  17. 17
    Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    Chris, I went and watched all your your “older videos”. I want you to know that I’m not much of a one for hero worship, but if I were, you’d be right up there at the head of the list.

Leave a Reply