Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Nov. 30 WorldNetDaily article notes that "A federal appeals court has set a briefing schedule in WND’s appeal of a district court judge’s decision to dismiss its $250 million lawsuit against Esquire magazine." This is followed by the usual blathering by WND's lawyer, perennial courtroom loser Larry Klayman, attacking the judge for allegedly committing "negligently commit[ting] gross errors of fact and law" by dismissing it.
Again, Klayman and WND refuse to mention the main reason WND's defamation lawsuit against Esquire was dismissed: WND editor Joseph Farah admitted at the time the Esquire blog post was published -- which claimed that WND would destroy copies of Jerome Corsi's then-upcoming book "Where's the Birth Certificate?" because Farah had decided that "I cannot in good conscience publish it and expect anyone to believe it" -- that he knew it was a parody.
As the ruling states, Farah "immediately recognized" that the Esquire article was satire -- telling the Daily Caller that the post was “a very poorly executed parody” -- until it became "inconvenient" for him to do so. The judge added: "Political satire can be, and often is, uncomfortable to its targets, but that does not render it any less satiric or any less an expression on a topic of public concern."
What we have here is not only Klayman performing is usual job of bad lawyering, but also WND performing bad journalism by hiding inconvenient facts from its readers that are crucial to a truthful understanding of the case. But we're used to that, aren't we?
