Remember that absurd lawsuit filed by the Worldnetdaily against Esquire over a parody article making fun of their birther obsessions? The district court dismissed the case, in which they are represented by Larry Klayman and now the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld that ruling. And look who the judges were that ruled against them:
A three-judge 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.
“It’s dishonest,” said WND’s attorney, Larry Klayman, of the decision. “This is an issue for the jury to decide. They took it away from the jury, and that’s inappropriate.”
Klayman argued that there is doubt as to whether or not a May 18, 2011, article on Esquire’s website by Executive Editor Mark Warren would be regarded by a reasonable person as satire, as Esquire and its publisher, Hearst, claim…
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.”
Judge Judith Rogers is a Reagan appointee, while Judge Rogers Brown is a notoriously far-right Bush nominee, one of the handful the Democrats tried to filibuster to keep off the court. You can read the full ruling here. Klayman says he’s going to ask for an en banc rehearing, which won’t be granted. Then they’ll file for cert with the Supreme Court, which won’t be granted. And then Klayman will be free to move on to losing his next case.