American Atheists Challenges IRS Religious Preferences »« Catherine Dunphy’s Story of Being Shunned

Klayman, WND Lose Another Court Ruling

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.

Comments

  1. marcus says

    “Because the reasonable reader could not, in context, understand Esquire’s blog post the World Net Daily to be conveying “real news”
    So that explains it! The WND is some sort of (not very funny) farcical satire, that makes much more sense!

  2. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Has Klayman ever won anything?

    How’d he even pass his bar exam – sheer pity?

  3. colnago80 says

    Re StevoR @ #2

    At least Klayman graduated from a respectable law school (Emory). Orly Taitz, who got her training at a phony Internet law school (Taft) somehow passed the bar exam in California, reputedly the toughest in the country.

  4. Jeremy Shaffer says

    How’d [Klayman] even pass his bar exam – sheer pity?

    Probably the same way almost anyone that passes the bar exam does; with just enough studying and attempts. Unfortunately for Klayman and his clients, a person’s ability to pass a test is in no way an indicator of their ability to do well in real life.

  5. says

    Judge Judith Rogers is a Reagan appointee, while Judge Rogers Brown is a notoriously far-right Bush nominee

    In hindsight, both Reagan and Bush were libtards.

  6. D. C. Sessions says

    Doesn’t WND have enough money to hire a good lawyer?

    What makes you think a good lawyer would want anything to do with one of WND’s “cases?”

  7. jamessweet says

    I think you’d have difficulty finding a single federal judge in the entire country who would give Klayman/WND any kind of positive ruling on this. You might be able to find an elected local judge somewhere who is sufficiently ignorant, but there’s just no way a federal judge is going to even consider this. It’s absurd.

  8. loren says

    Judith Rogers was a Clinton appointee, not a Reagan appointee. Stephen Williams, who voted with Rogers, was a Reagan appointee.

    WND, however, wrongfully thinks that Williams voted for them, simply because his name doesn’t appear in the decision. Reuters got this correct, and it says something about WND that they still haven’t fixed this error, 4 days later.

  9. Artor says

    Doesn’t WND have enough money to hire a good lawyer?

    Sure, WND has the money to hire a good lawyer; what they lack is the ability to tell a good lawyer from a delusional hack like Klayman.

  10. lorn says

    I don’t think they want a good lawyer. A good one would see the futility and ignominy of a straight losses as a detriment. The point here is to keep it in the news and show that ‘the good guys’ are putting up a good fight.

  11. coryat says

    @12 Yes, part of the appea of Klayman is that Klayman writes for the WND as well. They can fight the gallant fight, lose and drum up money and support from the rubes.

Leave a Reply