Comments on: WND Not Happy, Appeals Dismissal of Esquire Suit

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:33:43 +0000

Aron, I sorter know Majii from elsewhere. What is this icookie? No nuts, I hope- we get too many.

By: Aron

Aron — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:08:01 +0000

Maiji (and hat tip to Rey),

I apologize for my jumping the gun. I stupidly forgot to re-read Sam’s original post, and mistook good-natured snark for malicious sarcasm.

As a token of my esteem, I offer you one (1) delicious iCookie(tm). Enjoy your snack!

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:37:15 +0000

Aron, I don’t think it was Majii you meant to address.

By: Aron

Aron — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:58:41 +0000

Maiji,

How about you back up that entirely spurious claim with some hard evidence. We’ll wait for you.

By: majii

majii — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 04:56:03 +0000

@Sam Molloy
It appears that you were MIA in civics and political science classes since you seem to think that Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the American president the powers of a dictator. LOL

By: DrMJG

DrMJG — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 02:21:41 +0000

Actually, I, for one, am waiting for WND to be sued for defamation of character. Corsi just implied in an article that the President’s mother made porn.

In the esquire article, satire is protected. In the recent Corsi article, satire is not even implied or part of their tradition.

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:06:29 +0000

Erika, once the appeal is rejected, at least Rule 11 can help compensate for all the P, S, & A encountered at the trial level. I never encountered Rule 11 myself, but assume it works like Johnson factors in reverse.

This case has matter in common with the Irving v. Lipstadt case: even under the far stricter British libel standards, truth is an absolute defense. Here, however, the plaintiffs made public spectacles (whoops) figures of themselves, and would have had to show a knowing and malicious falsehood, which they could not, as their “journalism” is patently ridiculous. Their lawsuit was basically a group explosion of narcissistic rage.

By: Aron

Aron — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:05:43 +0000

NAFTA Refugee,

I don’t believe you are actually human. Please provide me with verifiable proof attesting to your actual species.

Damned fool.

By: Lewis Loflin

Lewis Loflin — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 19:27:06 +0000

When is this stupid birth certificate nonsense going to go away?

Obama is president get over it.

By: Sam Molloy

Sam Molloy — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:26:36 +0000

I would not care if he was from the moon if he had good ideas. Instead he comes up with small plans that would only help a few people anyway that he knows will not pass, so he can blame those mean ol’ Republicans for the state of the economy. Have you seen the Debt Clock?I’m starting to think he does not want a second term, when tough antidebt measures, or something, will have to be considered.

By: NAFTA Refugee

NAFTA Refugee — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:08:27 +0000

It’s a fake.

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:13:02 +0000

Thanx, Erika

By: Erika

Erika — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:22:32 +0000

You know that all satire is “told in a manner to be convincing” – that is what makes it satire because to reveal humor one must be at some levels convincing.

Meanwhile you may well want to look at the Supreme Court cases I cited above (New York Times v. Sullivan would also help) – both make it clear that courts are not to determine the humor value of a satire or parody. Cf. FCC v. Pacifica Foundation where the Supreme Court held that the FCC could fine the broadcast of George Carlin’s “Seven Words You Cannot Say on Televsion” regardless of the context of their use in humorous social commentary.

Rey, Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 11 is for trial courts, not for appeals. The appellate rules are much stricter as far as going after frivilous appeals.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:31:20 +0000

@Jay

You lost. Get over it.

By: Jay Kay

Jay Kay — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:42:31 +0000

Satire is not the conveyance of a lie in the attempt to undermine someones business. It should be funny, sarcastic, or ironic.

Warren’s piece was none of the above. It was a lie from beginning to end and told in a manner that was intended to be convincing.

It was so convincing that few, if any, readers viewed it as satire, and WND received many requests from media people requesting interviews, and asking for comments regarding the cancellation of Corsi’s book.

Warren and Esquire came up with the “satire” idea after it became clear that WND was going to take legal action against them.

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:54:22 +0000

Erika, that’s what Rule 11 is for. Meanwhile, the more money they dump down the drain, the less they have to defame people, and the less they can do that, the better for public peace and order.

By: Erika

Erika — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:25:07 +0000

Apparently someone needs to send Larry Klayman a copy of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell as well.

Would probably want to add in Campbell v. Acuff Rose as well.

Of course, it is quite possible as a competent attorney Larry Klayman is well aware of those precedents but as long as World Nut Daily checks are clearing and he doesn’t get hit with sanctions for arguing a position rejected by the Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote he will keep going.