AS280: Richard Carrier’s Lawsuit, with Andrew Torrez

Dr. Richard Carrier has launched a lawsuit against several parties, including prominent atheists that the listeners will likely be familiar with. You can find the details spelled out pretty well here.  I wanted to learn more about these cases in general so I invited legal expert Andrew Torrez on the show to teach us! Stay tuned at the end for my opinion on the case given everything we learn from Andrew.

Here are several relevant links, special thanks to Haeley:

Richard’s post explaining the case

The Orbit- Stephanie Zvan

Freethought Blogs- PZ Meyers

Skepticon Conference- Lauren Lane

Amy Frank- Facebook post

9 thoughts on “AS280: Richard Carrier’s Lawsuit, with Andrew Torrez”

  1. Oh man, the irony/hypocrisy/double standards (pick one or many) these regressive left clowns bathe themselves in would be hilarious if it wasn’t so scary.

    Carrier is now subject to the same extra-judicial mob “justice” he helped push for while at Free Thought Blogs. One big difference however: the people they went after then deserved it and Carrier is a beacon of virtue (as he says himself in the court paperwork; talk about lolcow material).

    You ever heard of the phrase ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’? Me either. I just made it up. No one has ever said it before. There are no priests who claim to be holy while porking little boy holes. There are no anti-gay priests that turn out to be gay themselves. No one has ever virtue signaled as a means to disguise the fact that they’re actually a-holes. SJW-ism isn’t entirely based on being racist/sexist to entire demographics of people while claiming you CAN’T be racist/sexist or that you’re not a self righteous a-hole and instead righteously indignant towards a broken system!

    never. even. once.

    all joking aside, I believe in the golden rule. In fact, 2 versions of it.

    1. treat others like you would want to be treated.

    2. and if they still treat you like shit, treat them the way they treat you.

    Richard Carrier has spent decades being part of the hate mob. He helped build the mechanisms by which this “social justice” plays out.

    He helped cement the ‘listen and believe’ and ‘always believe the accuser’ mentality.

    In fact, he went as far as to call out WHAT HE IS DOING RIGHT NOW in a post where he said that people with money (Carrier) use our broken judicial system to silence their accusers and how we need to support the accusers.

    here is the quote:

    “I think it is a fundamental injustice in this country that people have to pay for their own legal representation in courts. Please support the justice our government won’t: help someone get a fair trial. And in the process help fight sexual harassment: because if the precedent is set that harassers can intimidate their victims into shutting up by exploiting the injustice of our wealth-based justice system, well, I’ll let you do the math on that…”

    Clearly, he wanted these accusations to happen to him. Clearly he deserves this (under his own ideology). I think it’s sad that he’s now going against the standard he himself set. Carrier…aren’t you supposed to believe the accuser? GET DOWN AND BEG THE MOB FORGIVENESS!!!

    Now he is claiming damages because his inability to speak at Skepticon (no platform policy anyone?) is hurting him financially? So, now you support the rights of all the other people who have been no platformed for their speech/actions, especially when they’re just allegations made by a mob and not things proven in a court of law?

    You didn’t seem to feel that way back in Atheism+. I wonder what changed…

    We constantly talk about political pendulum shifts and why it’s important to take them into account when we start pushing for changes that would silence or chill speech. It’s especially important when we decide it’s now OK for people to take the law into their own hands and punish people for allegations that haven’t been proven in court (nor taken there).

    You won’t always be on the “right side of history” so you better be wary that you don’t create the monster that will be your own undoing.

    A part of me thinks Carrier needs this lesson. Another part hopes that it will help him recognize how wrong he’s been in the past, back when he was the one siccing the mob on the unworthy. Unfortunately, a HUGE part of me thinks that Carrier is exactly the type of narcissist to miss the point entirely.

    Here is the irony. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I think he’s right that rich people DO use the courts to silence the little guys and that it’s a shame (shame on your Carrier).

    However, there is no part of me that takes his lawsuit seriously or feels bad for him at all. You got exactly what you wanted carrier. You should be thankful. You should be celebrating man. IT WORKED! Your new system is so fool proof even YOU can’t get away from it.

    man…………..what a glorious day for social justice.

    1. I agree with “totally not Richard Carrier ;)”. The comment section needs a like button.

      The hypocrisy is delicious but I still feel a bit bad about the guy (unless/until there is actual evidence against him).

  2. Thomas and Andrew, I reallh apppreciated the podcast. It was informative without snark or judgement.

    And for the 2 comments above, Carrier’s innocence or guilt is unrelated to the validity of social justice.

    1. Not according to Richard Carrier. Well…not according to PAST Richard Carrier. Social justice has EVERYTHING to do with it. So I am the bad guy for holding him to the very standards he himself set? Nah…I’m going to pass on that. Carrier is in a world of his own making. His schadenfreude is delicious.

      Or do we now demand evidence from accusers? I spent years fighting the listen and believe narrative pushed by the far left. Just when I decided to give up and accept my original sin, as a white man, we’re going to change up the rules and start relying on ACTUAL justice?!. I wish people would just make up theor mind already.

  3. To all the Not Richard Carriers out there: you’re a pack of galloping assholes. When multiple firsthand witnesses attest to boorish behavior it’s a perfectly valid response to disassociate with that person. That *is* the evidence that would exist in such a case. You people have such a hate on for all things FTB or PZ or SJW related that you can’t even see that this is a case where appropriate steps were and are being followed.

  4. I 100% agree with the totally sane and not completely ideologically batshit insane person who responded in such a cool and collected manner!


    This isn’t sarcasm.

    We should take the account of anonymous people who accuse someone of a serious crime – who didn’t bother to report it to the police – that is furthered by a group of people who spend their every waking moment (Myers/Watson etc) looking for enemies among allies and calling out any – and all – poltical/ideological differences as racist/sexist/transphobic/misogynist/islamaphobic etc.

    These are the standards we SHOULD be holding people to.

    When Tim Hunt the celebrated scientist had his career and reputation ruined because a mob of SJWs swarmed and attacked on nothing but allegations he DESERVED IT. Fuck that guy. How dare he say the thing they claimed he said even though he didnt.

    Yeah I know…turns out it was all b.s. But thanks to SJW cognitive dissonance we can accept that it’s all b.s. while KNOWING it was true since the mob is always right.

    Why can’t these guys who are TOTALLY NOT RICHARD CARRIER IN DISGUISE (WINK WINK) see that allegations of “boorish behavior” IS the legal standard of evidence we should strive for.

    Beyond a reasonable doubt?




  5. It turns out that the twenty-first century politically correct equivalent of John Doe or John Smith or Joe Blow as a generic name is Mohammed Wong. It turns out that statistically, planet-wide, the most common surname is Wong. Likewise, the most common first name, planet-wide, is Mohammed. So, you can let Thomas Smith off the hook by referring to generic male entities as Mohammed Wong. In accordance with the same rationale, for references to nondescript female entities, Maria Wong has replaced Jane Doe.

    “Mohammed Wong: The least interesting man in the world. Definitely not the droid you are looking for.”

  6. Isn’t it funny that the people here are talking about presumptions of innocence when Carrier is suing people? Does their innocence not matter? Man, I sure love how only those accused of rape have rights.

Leave a Reply