Farah v. Esquire Magazine, Inc.
863 F. Supp. 2d 29
D.D.C.2012Background
- The case centers on WorldNetDaily.com, its publisher Farah, and Jerome Corsi alleging defamation and related claims arising from an Esquire.com blog post about the Corsi Book and Obama birth controversy.
- Plaintiffs allege the May 18, 2011 blog post libeled them and misrepresented the Corsi Book, causing injury, while Defendants Hearst Communications and Mark Warren move to dismiss.
- The Blog Post satirically alleged recall and pulp of the Corsi Book and mocked Plaintiffs’ Birther advocacy; it was later clarified by Esquire as satire.
- Plaintiffs seek over $100 million in actual/compensatory damages and over $20 million in punitive damages on multiple theories: defamation, false light, tortious interference, Lanham Act, and misappropriation.
- The court analyzes the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and applies the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, finding the challenged speech protected as satire on a matter of public interest.
- The court grants dismissal in favor of Defendants, concluding the Lanham Act claim is inapplicable to satirical non-commercial speech and the common-law claims fail under Anti-SLAPP and First Amendment protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lanham Act claim survives satire | Plaintiffs contend Defendants’ publication misrepresented facts about the book and its authors. | Defendants maintain the Blog Post is satire and non-commercial, not actionable under the Lanham Act. | Lanham Act claim dismissed |
| Whether the DC Anti-SLAPP Act requires dismissal | The claims target commercial interests and thus fall outside Anti-SLAPP protections. | Speech on public-interest issues related to the Birther controversy falls within § 16-5501 protections. | Claims dismissed under Anti-SLAPP |
| Whether the remaining common-law claims state a claim | Defamation/false light/misappropriation/potential tortious interference support relief. | Speech is protected satire; claims fail as a matter of First Amendment protection. | Claims dismissed; protected speech forecloses relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must contain plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for viability of claims)
- White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (public-issue speech protected; defamation limits apply)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (speech on public issues receives strong First Amendment protection)
- Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (satire protected when addressing public figures/issues)
- Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005) (trademark-like rights do not bar non-commercial expression of views)
- Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (anti-SLAPP dismissal of defamation/related claims)
- Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, 319 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 2003) (anti-SLAPP-style analysis in commercial-speech contexts)
- Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 86 F.3d 1379 (5th Cir. 1996) (limits of commercial-speech protection under Lanham Act)
- Osmose, Inc. v. Viance, LLC, 612 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2010) (Lanham Act at issue in non-traditional advertising contexts)