The next step in the never-ending nonsense that is the Carrier lawsuit takes place tomorrow, a hearing at the Warren E. Burger Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in St Paul, at 1:30 in the Devitt Courtroom. Richard Carrier will be there — he has to be, since he’s acting as his own lawyer (there’s some common phrase that ends, “has a fool for a client”). Our lawyer, Marc Randazza, will be there, because that’s his job, and I’m looking forward to seeing him perform. I don’t actually need to be there, since it’s going to be a battle between a lawyer and a “lawyer” on some point of law, but since I’m the one getting sued for over…
…I should at least be there to witness the fate of my financial future. Besides, Randazza has a reputation for arguing well, and I’d like to see him in action.
If anyone else would like to witness this war of words, it is an open court and you can sit in attendance. We’re absolutely not looking for cheerleaders or any kind of rousing participation by attendees, but if it doesn’t go on too long maybe we can meet up afterwards to talk about it.
As always, we’re still looking for donations to support our resistance against this SLAPP suit. Our colleagues at Affinity and sterr have also been carrying out sales and auctions to raise money for the effort. Lawyers are expensive. I just want the foolishness to end.
Why is Carrier doing this? Surely there are more reasonable ways. He does harm to his audience.
jack16
@ jack16, #1:
More reasonable ways of doing what, though? Of harassing people who have pointed out that he was accused of acting like a disgusting creep?
You should counter sue for…100 BILLION DOLLARS!
$1 million! That’s a lot of spiders.
I intend to be there. Won’t be cheering, of course, just looking dignified and lawyerly.
-Rieux, Esq.
What would happen to Freethought Blogs and The Orbit if Richard Carrier prevails in court?
I just read this and perhaps “Minnesota nice” (Minnesotans pride themselves on their niceness) affects the law when it comes to defamation:
“In our opinion, the Minnesota criminal defamation statute is overbroad because it punishes constitutionally protected free speech and does not provide for an absolute defense of truth.
The Minnesota criminal defamation statute was enacted in 1963. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Later that same year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another landmark decision in Garrison v. Louisiana. NY Times and Garrison laid out the test for determining when speech is not protected by the First Amendment, and when, if ever, states can impose criminal punishment for speech. The biggest holding from these cases is the explicit instruction from the Supreme Court that truth must be an absolute defense to any allegation of defamation. Before this decision, most states’ criminal defamation statute provided for a defense of truth as long as the statement was made “with good motives and for justifiable ends.” Following the NY Times and Garrison decisions, a number of states declared their criminal defamation statutes unconstitutional because they limited the defense of truth. Limiting the defense of truth in a criminal defamation matter unfairly shifts the burden of proof to the accused to show that he or she had a good enough reason for making the statement. This is contrary to our notion of criminal justice in which the burden is on the state to prove an accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not only does the Minnesota criminal defamation statute fail to provide for an absolute defense of truth, but it also unfairly punishes speech on matter of public concern or comments made about Minnesota’s public officials.” (source: https://arechigo-stokka.com/blog/constitutionality-of-the-minnesota-criminal-defamation-statute/ )
What pisses me off is that your state hasn’t bothered with anti-SLAPP law.
If there are any witnesses that Richard Carrier engaged in nonconsensual sexually related acts, can Carrier show there is reasonable doubt in terms of their testimony? If so, how much bearing does this have in terms of his lawsuit? Also, if there are witnesses, how many of them are they?
Another question I have is how long can Richard Carrier conceivably have the legal matter draw out. For example, if he lost the court case and appealed the court case, how long before tthings would be resolved in terms of an appeal?
One last matter, under a biblical worldview this is the case:
Matthew 18:16 ESV
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
(Matthew is alluding to Deuteronomy 19:15 ESV : “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.)
Matthew 18:15-17 ESV
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
The atheist Neil Carter wrote: “Friends of mine have noted lately how biting and critical the atheist community can be, not only toward outsiders, but even toward its own members. Has there ever been a subculture more prone to eating its own than this one? I really don’t know.” (source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2016/06/12/its-past-time-for-atheism-to-grow-up/ ).
Blair Scott served on the American Atheists board of directors. Mr. Scott formerly served as a State Director for the American Atheists organization in the state of Alabama. Mr. Blair wrote: “I have spent the last week mulling over what I want to do at this point in the movement. I’m tired of the in-fighting: at every level. I am especially tired of allowing myself to get sucked into it and engaging in the very behavior that is irritating..me.”
PZ Myers wrote in 2018: “I noticed the “troubling turn” about 8 years ago, as more and more atheists began to rally around two themes: the Glorious Leaders who were fonts of inarguable Reason & Logic…”. (source: https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/05/22/get-out-of-my-head-eiynah/ ).
PZ Myers also wrote: “Here is another problem though with the atheist movement. That we tend to inflate people beyond their capacity. So Seth Andrews, he’s got really good voice. OK, I will admit that. Ah, his position ought to be, you know, reading out transcripts of things that people more qualified, more intelligent than he is have written out. Ah, but no, he’s now an atheist thought leader and I have heard anything from him that I have found particularly thoughtful.” (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83DfGV1bmIc).
It seems to me as if the atheist population has little in the way of peaceably resolving disputes other than the courts which are expensive and can be very lengthy. Furthermore, when disputes do occur the “glorious leaders”, many of them who are incompetent, may have sizeable egos.
Mark:
Minnesota’s criminal defamation statute is irrelevant to the Carrier-Myers case. The lawsuit (or the Minnesota portion of it, anyway) is a civil defamation action that Carrier filed in Minnesota federal district court, seeking money damages from P.Z. Criminal defamation is an entirely different animal; the government would have to prosecute him for that. The government official with the authority to prosecute a resident of Minnesota, is the county attorney in the resident’s county; a quick Google search suggests that P.Z.’s county attorney is Stevens County Attorney Aaron Jordan. It is astronomically unlikely that Mr. Jordan would have any interest whatsoever in prosecuting P.Z. for criminal defamation on the facts of this case. (It’s entirely possible that no Stevens County Attorney has ever prosecuted anyone for criminal defamation.) Even if he did so, P.Z.’s counsel would be able to raise the constitutional objections described in the article you quote.
Today’s hearing also has basically nothing to do with witnesses. P.Z.’s counsel is arguing that Carrier’s lawsuit is fatally flawed in its fundamental legal premises and therefore deserves to be thrown out. The argument does not (indeed, at this point during proceedings, it legally cannot) rest on the credibility or lack thereof of any witness.
In terms of timing, today’s hearing is before a federal magistrate—a lower-level district-court judge. Based upon the written arguments P.Z.’s counsel and Carrier have submitted and the additional advocacy they provide in person this afternoon, the magistrate will issue a written recommendation to the district judge. The document will almost certainly suggest either that the district court (1) grant P.Z.’s motion and dismiss Carrier’s Minnesota lawsuit without further ado or (2) deny P.Z.’s motion and allow the lawsuit to continue to the discovery phase. After the issuance of the magistrate’s recommendation, both sides will be permitted to submit any objections to the recommendation they have to the district judge, who will then issue the district court’s final decision on the motion. (Whatever course the magistrate recommends is the odds-on favorite to be the course the district judge takes; that’s what the magistrate is for.) All this can take months.
Presuming, as I think is likely, that the magistrate recommends dismissal and the district judge agrees and dismisses the case, Carrier would then have the right to appeal his loss to a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. This would mean a few more months during which P.Z.’s lawyers and Carrier would submit further written arguments to the appellate panel. I suspect the court would not order oral argument in a case like this, so the panel would likely issue its decision based on written submissions alone.
If we assume that Carrier lost at that phase as well, he would then have the right to ask for a rehearing in front of the full Eight Circuit (“en banc”) and/or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appellate decision. The chances that either one of those requests would be granted, however, are remote.
All of these courts have wide discretion in deciding how quickly or slowly to rule. That means it’s very difficult to place a confident time frame on when we should expect to know the final outcome of the case; if every court took as much time as reasonably possible just to complete the appeal process described above, it could take… I dunno, five years? But this lawsuit is in fact a small, relatively simple one, so it’s more likely that that process will be finished in a year or less. (One thing that would significantly accelerate a denouement is if the party that loses at district or appellate level decides not to press further appeals.) My guess is that all of the courts to which this suit is presented will want to decide it rather quickly.
As for your “biblical worldview” comments, it is to laugh. Modern dispute resolution bears little resemblance to New Testament mythology regardless of who is having the dispute. If you think that Christians—or devotees of any other religious or irreligious belief system—in the modern United States don’t resort to state and federal courts to resolve disputes between them, you’re deluded.
The Apostle Paul declared about Christians resolving disputes among themselves rather than using the civil courts: “When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?” (1 Corinthians 6:1).
If only atheists had a weighty book that encouraged dispute resolution among themselves rather than face lengthy and expensive means of dispute resolution!
If you get there and see the judge wearing a spider brooch, you’ll know you’re in good hands. https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2019/sep/24/say-it-with-a-brooch-how-a-fashion-item-became-a-political-statement
The hearing has ended; P.Z.’s attorney was very good, and Carrier wasn’t bad for an amateur. The judge didn’t announce a ruling from the bench (judges in this position almost never do), so the next step for everyone is to wait.
Meanwhile, I learned something I hadn’t known about the procedural posture of this case: the two sides have agreed to give the magistrate judge the authority to try the entire lawsuit—which means that the things I wrote above about making a recommendation to the district judge don’t apply in this particular case. The magistrate will be deciding the whole thing.
That means that, when the magistrate decides the motion that was argued today, either the Minnesota suit will be thrown out (which means it’s all over, barring an appeal to the Eighth Circuit) or it will continue into further proceedings. We ought to find out within the next few months.
The lawsuit will probably go nowhere, but there is certainly a possibility that it could drag on to the bitter end and that Richard Carrier will appeal (Resources on the lawsuit probably going nowhere are at https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/atheistically-speaking-2/atheistically-speaking/e/as280-richard-carriers-lawsuit-with-andrew-torrez-46683969 and https://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/2016/10/02/analysis-richard-carrier-lawsuit/ ).
Dr. Richard Carrier strikes me as the type of person who will doggedly pursue this legal matter.
Consider:
“Yet the cognitive and behavioral science literature suggests that those who are highly educated, intelligent or rhetorically skilled tend to be significantly less likely than most to revise their beliefs or adjust their positions when confronted with evidence or arguments that contradict their priors. This is because, in virtue of knowing more about the world, or being better at arguing, they are better equipped to punch holes in data or arguments that contradict their prior views or to otherwise make excuses for “sticking to their guns” regardless. And so, they do…
Indeed, research suggests that people with highly refined critical capacities often deploy them to scrutinize others. Hence, those with higher education levels and academic aptitude (college GPA) tend to be less attuned than most to ambiguity, complexity, uncertainty and limitations in their own knowledge — and less prone to innovative or creative thinking.
That is perhaps because studies show that, compared to the general public, highly educated or intelligent people tend to be more ideological in their thinking, more ideologically rigid and more extreme in their ideological leanings. Highly educated and intelligent people are also more likely to grow obsessed with some moral or political cause. Research suggests that they are more likely to overreact to small shocks, challenges or slights. Other studies have found that, while they are less likely to be prejudiced against others on the basis of things like race, they tend to be more prejudiced than most against those who seem to think differently than they do — and often look down on those with less education.
In short, many of the biases and distortions to which all people are susceptible seem to be even more pronounced among those who are highly educated or intelligent.” (source: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/08/27/academe-should-avoid-politicizing-educational-attainment-opinion?utm_content=buffer09313&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer ).
Mark—again, that’s some peachy keen ancient mythology you got there, but back here in the modern (and real) world Christians sue one another all the time.
The lawsuit will probably go nowhere, but there is certainly a possibility that it could drag on to the bitter end and that Richard Carrier will appeal (Resources on the lawsuit probably going nowhere are at https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/atheistically-speaking-2/atheistically-speaking/e/as280-richard-carriers-lawsuit-with-andrew-torrez-46683969 and https://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/2016/10/02/analysis-richard-carrier-lawsuit/ ).
Dr. Richard Carrier strikes me as the type of person who will doggedly pursue this legal matter.
Consider:
“Yet the cognitive and behavioral science literature suggests that those who are highly educated, intelligent or rhetorically skilled tend to be significantly less likely than most to revise their beliefs or adjust their positions when confronted with evidence or arguments that contradict their priors. This is because, in virtue of knowing more about the world, or being better at arguing, they are better equipped to punch holes in data or arguments that contradict their prior views or to otherwise make excuses for “sticking to their guns” regardless. And so, they do…
Indeed, research suggests that people with highly refined critical capacities often deploy them to scrutinize others. Hence, those with higher education levels and academic aptitude (college GPA) tend to be less attuned than most to ambiguity, complexity, uncertainty and limitations in their own knowledge — and less prone to innovative or creative thinking.
That is perhaps because studies show that, compared to the general public, highly educated or intelligent people tend to be more ideological in their thinking, more ideologically rigid and more extreme in their ideological leanings. Highly educated and intelligent people are also more likely to grow obsessed with some moral or political cause. Research suggests that they are more likely to overreact to small shocks, challenges or slights. Other studies have found that, while they are less likely to be prejudiced against others on the basis of things like race, they tend to be more prejudiced than most against those who seem to think differently than they do — and often look down on those with less education.
In short, many of the biases and distortions to which all people are susceptible seem to be even more pronounced among those who are highly educated or intelligent.” (source: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/08/27/academe-should-avoid-politicizing-educational-attainment-opinion?utm_content=buffer09313&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer ).
Rieux: Thanks for the informed summary.
There is a good possibility that Richard Carrier will be dogged in this legal fight and continue the legal fight until the bitter end.
Why?
Consider:
Dr. Richard Carrier is highly educated. You could also argue that he is an atheist activist and an ideological person given his involvement in the Atheism Plus movement.
“Yet the cognitive and behavioral science literature suggests that those who are highly educated, intelligent or rhetorically skilled tend to be significantly less likely than most to revise their beliefs or adjust their positions when confronted with evidence or arguments that contradict their priors. This is because, in virtue of knowing more about the world, or being better at arguing, they are better equipped to punch holes in data or arguments that contradict their prior views or to otherwise make excuses for “sticking to their guns” regardless. And so, they do…
Indeed, research suggests that people with highly refined critical capacities often deploy them to scrutinize others. Hence, those with higher education levels and academic aptitude (college GPA) tend to be less attuned than most to ambiguity, complexity, uncertainty and limitations in their own knowledge — and less prone to innovative or creative thinking.
That is perhaps because studies show that, compared to the general public, highly educated or intelligent people tend to be more ideological in their thinking, more ideologically rigid and more extreme in their ideological leanings. Highly educated and intelligent people are also more likely to grow obsessed with some moral or political cause. Research suggests that they are more likely to overreact to small shocks, challenges or slights. Other studies have found that, while they are less likely to be prejudiced against others on the basis of things like race, they tend to be more prejudiced than most against those who seem to think differently than they do — and often look down on those with less education.
In short, many of the biases and distortions to which all people are susceptible seem to be even more pronounced among those who are highly educated or intelligent.” https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/08/27/academe-should-avoid-politicizing-educational-attainment-opinion?utm_content=buffer09313&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
@Mark Thompson:
Interesting. You seem to be implying that the judges, legislators, and law codes of the counties, states, and federal government of the United States of America are not Christian. So you would agree that America is not a Christian nation? Or would you argue that if the judges and legislators are Christians, they are at best fake Christians, since they do not refer to the bible to resolve disputes? Is America a fake Christian nation?
@Owlmirror
3 points:
Church attendance is higher now than in colonial America.
“The “normal” religious life many Americans seem to remember is the life of the 1950s, when church-building and church-attending boomed—not coincidentally, along with the Baby Boom. Those years were the peak of church membership and attendance in American history—much higher than in Early America—but not that much higher than today.” https://tif.ssrc.org/2010/03/26/was-early-america-a-christian-america/
Although the irreligious/nonreligious population may peak in 2043 or sooner in the USA according to scholars, immigration and the higher fertility rate of Christians is expected to see a prolonged period of religious resurgence after the secular population peaks. See: http://www.sneps.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/jssr_15101.pdf
Dr. Steve Turley indicates: “According to a recent a demographic study by University of London Professor Eric Kaufmann, there is a significant demographic deficit between secularists and conservative religionists. For example, in the U.S., while self-identified secular women averaged only 1.5 children per couple in 2002, conservative evangelical women averaged 2 to 3 children per couple, which amounts to a 28 percent fertility advantage. Now Kaufmann notices that this demographic deficit has dramatic effects over time. In a population evenly divided, these numbers indicate that conservative evangelicals would increase from 50 to 62.5 percent of the population in a single generation. In two generations, their number would increase to 73.5 percent, and over the course of 200 years, they would represent 99.4 percent.
Kaufmann noticed further that the more religiously conservative, the more children. For example, the Amish double in population every twenty years, and are projected to number over a million in the U.S. and Canada in just a few decades. We’re seeing a similar trend among Mormons, who have averaged a 40 percent growth per decade, which means that by the end of the century, there will be as many as 300 million Mormons in the world, or six percent of the world’s population. And note: Mormons vote overwhelmingly Republican.
Now in stark contrast to all of this, Kaufmann’s data projects that secularists consistently exemplify a low fertility rate of around 1.5 percent per couple, which is significantly below the replacement level of 2.1 percent. And so he sees a steady decline of secular populations after 2030 or 2050 to potentially no more than a mere 14 to 15 percent of the American population. He notices that similar projections apply to Europe as well.” https://www.christianpost.com/news/feminist-futility-why-the-womens-march-promises-a-conservative-future-173350/
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” – The Apostle Paul
Mark, I noticed how you evaded Owlmirror’s actual questions. Not like a pro, but still.
Anyway.
Heh. I remember chatting for lo those many hours, late into the new day, with a Scientologist.
Similar prognostications, with about as much basis.
(Also: https://www.google.com/search?q=ex-mormon+resources)
Ah, yes. What Nietzsche called slave morality.
Which is why it became the state religion, back when.
@Mark Thompson: You seem to be arguing that America was not a Christian nation at its founding, So America was not a Christian nation, and the laws and statues of its cities, states, and federal government are, for the most part, similarly not Christian. Thus, the governments of America, at all levels and all branches, are not Christian. Yes?
You post some triumphalist blather about religious conservatives having a greater reproductive rate. But Christianity is not a biological character. The growth of populations of religious adherents is only significant if the retention and positive conversion rates match the population growth.
All those Christian mothers could ultimately have 1 or more of their children deconverting and joining the secularists. At a guess, it would probably be the case that more urban Christian groups will tend to shrink, and more rural Christian groups will tend to grow.
This “We’re going to outbreed you!” stuff is interesting, in that it abandons any pretence of arguing that Christianity is actually true, or even beneficial. Apart from that, pfft: both fertility rates, and rates of ideological transmission between generations, are extremely hard to predict, because they are subject to multiple influences, including ones that don’t even exist at the time the prediction is made.
Incidentally, isn’t it interesting that “Mark Thompson”@16 and “Mark Williamson”@18 posted near-identical comments. I think your sock-puppetry needs work, Mark.
@KG:
I may be misremembering, but I don’t think Mark Thompson’s comment was originally @16.
I recently had several comments disappear, presumably to spam, when trying to post a single specific link. I checked that thread, and I see that my comment attempts are there now. Mark Thompson may have had his comment (now @16) disappear, and decided to try reposting without some of the links, as Mark Williamson. I guess PZ restored my comments and Mark’s from the spam bin.
No comment on why Mark thought it necessary to change his e-mail and username to try reposting.
The sock puppet troll is just lying.
The Mormon churches numbers are always fantasy.
To take on example, retention rates of converts in the USA runs around…zero.
It’s not much higher in the Third World either.
The Mormons in the USA are actually declining in numbers.
If you actually ask people what they are, the Pew surveys among others, the number of people who say “Mormon” is slowly going down.
Half the people raised and brainwashed Mormon leave the church anyway.
Source here: Judgment, trust, LGBT issues driving millennials from Mormon church
By Pamela Manson
A new study shows that millennials in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not as progressive as their non-Mormon millennial peers but not as conservative as their parents and grandparents. File Photo by Sopotnicki/Shutterstock
SALT LAKE CITY, May 22 (UPI) — Mormon millennials are leaving the church at about double the rate of their parents and grandparents, according to a new book that draws on a study of four generations of current and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“We used to keep about three-quarters of people who grew up Mormon and now it’s less than half,” said Jana Riess, author of The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church.
What Mark Sockpuppets is claiming even has a name.
Biological colonialism, the attempt of one group to outbreed other groups.
It rarely works.
After a generation or two, the kids decide they have better things to do with their time and money than outbreed a few hundred million or billion strangers they’ve never even met.
Their birth rate declines to the society average.
The Catholics tried it.
Their birth rate is now the same as the national average.
The Mormons tried it, being pro large family biological colonialists.
It’s failing.
Like US xianity in general, they have to reproduce because they can’t recruit.
And half their kids leave their ugly little cult.
It’s even higher for the Southern Baptists, their own numbers are 30% retention of kids.
US xianity is losing 2 million people a year.
It will be less than half the population by around 2043.
So what.
This is simply irrelevant.
So are we.
There are a lot of MD’s, Ph.D.’s, lawyers, and other advanced degree holders on Freethoughtblogs and Pharyngula.
Dr. Myers is a professor at UM Morris, after all.
Richard Carrier’s problem isn’t being too smart.
In fact, that is a claim for which he is continuously providing evidence that it is simply not true.
There is something wrong here but I don’t care enough about Carrier to even guess what it is. In even the minor scheme of things, he is at best a minor nuisance and of no other importance.