I frequently post small updates to current events stories on older blog posts, such as just earlier today I did an update on my “Forced Out of Business Because of The Gays” post about a British bed and breakfast owner losing a case. But, since this one concerns World Net Daily, the subject of this entire blog, I figured that I wouldn’t just post a small update on my previous story from October 4, 2013, World Net Daily Continues to Press Defamation Lawsuit for Spoof Story.” In that post, I concluded with this:
Anyway, the purpose of this post is WND’s latest, by Garth Kant, “Oral Arguments in $250M Defamation Case.” Larry Klayman (founder of Judicial Watch, currently with Freedom Watch) is the attorney representing WND, Farah, and Corsi.
Klayman is asking the appeals judge to basically throw out everything Esquire said that the trial judge found to be accurate, and if the appeals court doesn’t do that, he wants them to send it back to the district court and assign a new judge.
Maybe it’s just me, but this seems to be grasping at straws. I expect the appeals judge to dismiss the case with prejudice (meaning they can’t bring it back, but they can of course appeal again to a higher court).
As a side-note, Larry Klayman, WND’s attorney in this case, is the same guy who recently led a rally of “millions” (closer to 200) in Washington DC to oust President Obama. (Hint: Obama was not ousted.)
Anywho, the latest post, “Court Rules in WND’s ‘Birth Certificate’ Lawsuit,” was posted two days ago (November 26, 2013). Authorship is unattributed. The news can be best summarized by the first paragraph:
By a two-to-one vote, a federal appeals court panel Tuesday denied WND’s request for a jury trial to determine whether or not an Esquire magazine article that ridiculed the Internet publisher and suppressed sales of a book should be protected by the First Amendment.
Going further, as the article says, this was a two-to-one vote:
The majority of Judges Judith W. Rogers and Janice Rogers Brown wrote: “Because the reasonable reader could not, in context, understand Esquire’s blog post to be conveying “real news” – that is, actual facts about Farah and Corsi – the blog post was not actionable defamation.”
Senior circuit Judge Stephen F. Judge Williams decided in WND’s favor, but he did not issue a written opinion.
The majority further argued “it is the nature of satire that not everyone ‘gets it’ immediately,” citing the example of Daniel Defoe’s “The Shortest Way with the Dissenters,” an anonymous satirical pamphlet against religious persecution that initially was “welcomed by the church establishment Defoe sought to ridicule.”
Rogers and Rogers Brown contended that the article’s context, along with specific elements of substance and style, would “convince the reasonable reader that the blog post was satirical.”
(Yes, that second paragraph is a direct quote. I’m not sure where the typo is, but it’s somewhere because that sentence – or those two sentences – do(es) not make sense unless the guy has a second middle name and it’s “Judge.”) Klayman’s argument is that it should be up to a jury, not just the judges. But, tough for him — he’s the lawyer, they’re the judges, they get to decide. And, I don’t think that they have any hope for a successful appeal after this, especially since (based on my reading from USCourts.gov) the only appeal after this is the US Supreme Court.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are numerous ratings (485 ratings for a 4.69/5-star average) and 454 comments, two days later. It’s seriously not worth repeating them, especially since most are non sequiturs.