Joseph Farah v. Esquire Magazine
407 U.S. App. D.C. 208
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Farah (WorldNetDaily) and Corsi published and promoted a book alleging President Obama was ineligible; Esquire’s Politics Blog published a May 18, 2011 post falsely reporting that Farah recalled and pulped the book.
- Esquire posted an update ~90 minutes later identifying the piece as satire and Warren (the author) later told The Daily Caller he had no regrets and used strong invective.
- Farah and Corsi sued Esquire, Hearst, and Warren for defamation, false light, tortious interference, invasion of privacy, and Lanham Act violations seeking >$100M.
- Esquire moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and filed a special Anti‑SLAPP motion; the district court dismissed, holding the blog post was protected satire/opinion and the Lanham Act didn’t apply.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed: the blog post was nonactionable political satire; the update and post‑publication comments were protected opinion; the related tort claims failed; the Lanham Act claim did not cover the noncommercial speech alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Esquire’s blog post is actionable defamation or protected satire | The post falsely reported a recall and pulping of the book and caused harm; reasonable readers were misled | The post is political satire/parody and, read in context, cannot reasonably be understood as stating actual facts | Post is protected satire; defamation claim for the blog post fails |
| Whether the May 18 "update" and Warren’s comments are actionable | The update and comments perpetuated falsehoods and harmed plaintiffs | The update and comments are nonactionable opinion based on disclosed facts and context | Update and Warren’s remarks are protected opinion; defamation claim fails as to them |
| Whether related tort claims (false light, tortious interference, invasion of privacy) survive absent defamation | Plaintiffs argued other torts independently caused harm | Defendants argued the other tort claims rest on the same protected speech and cannot evade First Amendment limits | Related tort claims fail because they rest on the same nonactionable speech |
| Whether the Lanham Act applies to Esquire’s blog post | Plaintiffs argued Esquire is a commercial competitor and its false statements caused confusion actionable under §1125 | Defendants argued the speech was noncommercial political expression outside the Lanham Act’s scope | Lanham Act claim dismissed: §1125 applies to commercial advertising/promotional conduct, not this political/satirical blog post |
Key Cases Cited
- Weyrich v. New Republic, Inc., 235 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir.) (context and genre control whether speech implies verifiable facts)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (statements must be reasonably understood as asserting verifiable facts to be defamatory)
- Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (parody/satire may not be actionable as factual assertion)
- Greenbelt Coop. Publ’g Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970) (rhetorical hyperbole and opinion protected)
- Moldea v. New York Times Co., 15 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir.) (opinion based on disclosed facts generally nonactionable)
- Moldea v. New York Times Co., 22 F.3d 310 (D.C. Cir.) (public‑concern statements must be provably false to support defamation)
- Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (1974) (context and literary form inform whether words assert facts)
- Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation for Apologetic Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir.) (Lanham Act does not reach noncommercial/parodic criticism)
- Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir.) (use of mark in criticism not Lanham Act commercial use)