Birthers sue Esquire for more than $100 million over satire

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/birthers-sue-esquire-more-100-million-over-satire-163444777.html

Birthers sue Esquire for more than $100 million over satire they say hurt book sales

By Dylan Stableford | The Cutline – Thu, Jun 30, 2011

If you thought birther conspiracy theorists went the way of Donald Trump's presidential hopes, think again.

Joseph Farah--who runs the World Net Daily website and a related book imprint--and Jerome Corsi, author of "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Hussein Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President," held a press conference in Washington, D.C., yesterday to announce that they have filed a lawsuit against Esquire magazine and its owner, Hearst, over an satirical article by Mark Warren published last month.

"This was a serious mistake by Mark Warren and Esquire for which they will pay dearly," Larry Klayman, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said. "It was obviously calculated with malice to destroy not just the book and its sales, but the reputations of Mr. Corsi and Mr. Farah."

The piece ("BREAKING! Jerome Corsi's Birther Book Pulled From Shelves!") was published shortly after President Obama released his longform birth certificate--also the time when Corsi's book was released. But, as Forbes' Jeff Bercovici noted, some readers failed to recognize the satire, forcing Esquire to add this disclaimer:

We committed satire this morning to point out the problems with selling and marketing a book that has had its core premise and reason to exist gutted by the news cycle, several weeks in advance of publication. Are its author and publisher chastened? Well, no. They double down, and accuse the President of the United States of perpetrating a fraud on the world by having released a forged birth certificate. Not because this claim is in any way based on reality, but to hold their terribly gullible audience captive to their lies, and to sell books. This is despicable, and deserves only ridicule.

"It was amateurish, it was rank, and it hurt," Klayman said at the press conference, which according to Adweek was attended by just three reporters. "There was nothing stating that it was satire."

Farah and Corsi--who authored the 2004 Swift Boat book that helped sink John Kerry's presidential bid--claim the article defamed them and hurt book sales. They are seeking compensatory damages of at least $100 million, punitive damages of $20 million, plus legal costs. (Forbes noted that, all told, the plaintiffs are demanding $285 million.)

Esquire claimed Wednesday it had not yet seen the lawsuit, but did not sound terribly worried.

"The blog post spoke for itself," a representative for the magazine said in a statement. "It was satire, an age-old and completely legitimate form of expression. Additionally, the piece was tagged as 'humor,' as are all of our frequent satire posts on Esquire's Politics Blog. That was not lost on our observant readers."

You can click here to read a full copy of the lawsuit.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How could anyone destroy the reputation of two numbnuts?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

One f the best and most refreshing things of living in Ukraine was the obvious lack of attorneys!

They have "socialized law" in Ukraine, kind of like socialized medicine and it works just as well in running off attorneys as it does for running off doctors.

It's downwind of Chernobyl, but there are no attorneys!

[mawilson 2,133]

How could anyone destroy the reputation of two numbnuts?

His book is called "Where's the Birth Certificate?"

[jundp 191]

"It was amateurish, it was rank, and it hurt," Klayman said at the press conference, which according to Adweek was attended by just three reporters. "There was nothing stating that it was satire."

That last part is my favorite. Um, yeah. If someone needs it stated that it's satire, then you probably aren't the intended audience, since satire, by definition is the use of intelligent wit, irony, and sarcasm.

But then again, the Brits got pissed at Jonathan Swift for "A Modest Proposal" too.

Edited July 1, 2011 by jundp

[Darnell 8,478]

I dunno, it's one thing to be in print,

it's another thing for it to be online

since it's a frickin magazine, and the blog post was by one of the PRINT authors - the disclaimer should have been in, prior.

Lets see wot the judges say, 3 years from now, when the case gets to trial.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I dunno, it's one thing to be in print,

it's another thing for it to be online

since it's a frickin magazine, and the blog post was by one of the PRINT authors - the disclaimer should have been in, prior.

Lets see wot the judges say, 3 years from now, when the case gets to trial.

The judge will call the plaintiffs numbnut freaks and award legal fees to the respondents.

[scandal 951]

They should hire Orly to handle their suit ....