Farah v. Esquire Magazine, Inc.
736 F.3d 528 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A satirical publication is not defamatory and is protected by the First Amendment if, when considered in its full context, a hypothetical reasonable reader would not interpret it as stating actual facts about an individual, even if some actual readers were initially misled.
Facts:
- Jerome Corsi authored a book titled “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to Be President,” which was published by Joseph Farah’s company, WND Books.
- The book was released approximately three weeks after President Obama had publicly released his long-form birth certificate.
- One day after the book's release, Mark Warren published an article on Esquire Magazine’s Politics Blog titled “BREAKING: Jerome Corsi’s Birther Book Pulled from Shelves!”
- The article falsely claimed that Farah had decided to recall the entire 200,000-book first printing and offer refunds to customers.
- The article included fabricated quotes from Farah calling the book problematic and from an anonymous source using profane language to describe Farah's supposed reaction to the birth certificate release.
- About 90 minutes after the initial post, Esquire published an update on its blog clarifying that the article was satire intended to ridicule the book's premise.
- On the same day, Warren told another publication, The Daily Caller, that he had no regrets about the article and referred to Corsi as an “execrable piece of shit.”
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi filed a lawsuit against Esquire Magazine, Hearst Communications, and Mark Warren in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The complaint alleged claims for defamation, false light, tortious interference with business relations, and violation of the Lanham Act.
- Esquire filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted Esquire's motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
- Farah and Corsi, as appellants, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with Esquire et al. as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a satirical blog post that contains literally false statements about public figures and their work constitute actionable defamation under the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Rogers
No. A satirical blog post that contains literally false statements is not actionable defamation because it is protected by the First Amendment when a reasonable reader, considering the total context, would not interpret the publication as stating actual facts. To determine if a statement is protected satire, courts must assess the publication as a whole, including the genre, the forum, the broader social context, and specific stylistic or substantive cues that signal satire. The court reasoned that the article's central premise—that Farah would abruptly recall a book he championed the day after its release—was inherently incredible to the politically informed readers of Esquire's Politics Blog. Furthermore, outlandish details, such as a fabricated book title for Corsi and the use of profane, informal quotes, served as indicia of satire. The court concluded that the test is not whether some readers were actually misled, but whether a hypothetical reasonable reader would perceive the statements as factual, which in this case they would not.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the robust First Amendment protection afforded to satire and parody, particularly in the realm of political commentary. The court established that the legal standard for defamation in such cases is objective—based on a 'hypothetical reasonable reader'—rather than subjective, meaning the actual confusion of some readers is not determinative. By emphasizing the importance of total context, the ruling provides significant legal cover for satirists, especially in online media where the line between news and commentary can be blurred. This precedent makes it more difficult for public figures to succeed in defamation lawsuits based on ridicule or parody, thereby preserving 'breathing space' for critical and imaginative expression on matters of public concern.
