Maryland Politician Files $10 Million Lawsuit Against Activist Shaun Porter Over Parody Sign

On March 31, 2025, John Barr, the President of the Washington County, Maryland Board of Commissioners, filed a lawsuit seeking damages exceeding $10 million from local activist Shaun Porter. The lawsuit centers around a parody sign that Porter has displayed at various public events. The sign includes a satirical statement about Barr, suggesting an inappropriate relationship with his mother. Barr claims that the sign, which references a sexual incident in an outhouse, is defamatory and caused significant emotional distress, particularly after the death of his mother in January 2024.

The lawsuit, a 13-page complaint, focuses specifically on the parody sign and does not address other criticisms or public statements made by Porter regarding Barr or other County Commissioners. Barr alleges that the sign is deeply offensive, as it references an incestuous relationship, which is framed as a societal taboo. He further claims that the display of the sign has resulted in emotional harm and negative attention toward his family, particularly during the holiday season.

The sign in question features a satirical exchange, where an individual, purporting to be Barr, talks about an inappropriate experience in Lynchburg, Virginia. The lawsuit argues that the sign defames Barr by insinuating that he engaged in immoral behavior. The language of the sign closely resembles a parody ad from the 1980s in Hustler magazine involving televangelist Jerry Falwell. In the case Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such parodies, even when offensive, are protected under the First Amendment, especially when they involve public figures. As an elected County Commissioner, Barr is considered a public figure. RFHC’s editor Ken Buckler discussed the sign in a “You Are The Media” substack article in December, 2024, comparing it to the Hustler parody ad. The fact that the sign so closely resembles a parody ad declared acceptable by the Supreme Court, combined with the fact that Barr is a public figure, will possibly increase the difficulty of Barr proving damages. The highlights of Barr’s complaint are reproduced below.

In addition to the parody sign, Barr’s lawsuit claims that Porter unlawfully shared Barr’s private phone number on social media. However, a public search of websites that list phone numbers reveals that the number in question is publicly accessible, suggesting that Porter was likely not sharing private information, but simply re-sharing information that was already available publicly. Interestingly enough, the same website shows Barr as having a residence in Port Orange, FL, in addition to his known address in Clear Spring, MD, which may be erroneous data or indicate a second residence. It is possible that Porter may have violated the terms of use for whichever website he obtained the information from by re-sharing it in the manner which he did, but that would likely be a contract enforcement issue between Porter and the public search website.

Barr is represented by Sarah Spitalnick from Pikesville, MD, as well as Jonathan Gross from Baltimore, MD. No entry of legal counsel has been filed yet for Porter. The filing comes after three peace orders against Porter were dismissed in Washington County after county employees failed to prove enough evidence against Porter. Given the County’s ongoing issues with Porter and attempts to restrict his antics at County meetings, it’s possible Porter may seek dismissal under anti-SLAPP laws.

We will continue to monitor this case closely, and update as it develops.

Article by multiple RFHC contributors, based upon information from Washington County Circuit Court filing C-21-CV-25-000161. While we typically include raw source documents in our public information archive, we have chosen for privacy purposes to omit the document in this case since it contains John Barr’s personal address and phone number, even though that information is now publicly available in the court filings.

Editor’s Note: As we have previously stated multiple times, we absolutely do not agree with Porter’s tactics against Washington County Government. The editor has multiple times expressed frustration to Porter regarding his methods, but acknowledges that his behavior is likely constitutionally protected speech based on current case law. This case will certainly put that to the test, and are happy to see that no taxpayer funds are being spent in this endeavor since it is a matter between Mr. Barr and Mr. Porter. However, we once again encourage Mr. Porter to seek out less offensive solutions towards revision of public policy, whatever his disagreements with current policy may be.

---