World News Korner

Video: Oral Arguments In $250M Lawsuit; Obama Birth Certificate

Federal Judge Stephen F. Williams asked the attorney for Esquire magazine what in the First Amendment permitted his client to accuse someone of making money off of gullible readers?

That question suggested the crux of the matter in the lawsuit brought by WND against Esquire: If a political attack is called satire, is any message permissible, even if it cause damages?

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments Thursday in Joseph Farah v. Esquire Magazine. Farah is the founder and CEO of WND.com.

WND filed a $250 million defamation suit against Esquire magazine and its publisher, Hearst, because of a May 18, 2011, report on the magazine’s website by Executive Editor Mark Warren that falsely claimed the WND Books exposé “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President” by Jerome Corsi had been recalled and repudiated by publisher WND Books and by Farah.

Esquire argued the article was satire and is entitled to First Amendment protection. The WND suit, however, contends the article is not protected by the First Amendment, because its publication caused real damage by defaming WND and suppressing book sales. Many potential book buyers and media members clearly believed the article was a news story reporting the demise of the book, not a work of satire.


WND is appealing a decision in June 2012 by Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court in D.C. to grant Esquire’s motion to dismiss the case based on D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects media and public figures from frivolous lawsuits regarding their First Amendment rights.

After Judge Williams asked Esquire’s attorney what in the First Amendment allowed Esquire to accuse WND of making money off gullible readers, defense attorney Jonathan R. Donnellan called the article in question “classic satire” and deserving of special protections.

Furthermore, Donnellan claimed satire is “designed to fool readers.” But then, he made just the opposite argument, insisting “reasonable readers” should have been able to tell it was satire.

That remark prompted Judge Janice Rogers Brown to note that Farah had said he received calls from the top editors of major media companies from all over the country, asking if the story was true.

She asked Donnellan if he would consider those top media professionals to be “reasonable readers?”
[..] Continued @ WND.




Source