Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-12-07055/USCOURTS-caDC-12-07055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 3, 2013 Decided November 26, 2013

No. 12-7055

JOSEPH FARAH, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:11-cv-01179)

Larry Klayman argued the cause and filed the briefs for

appellants.

Jonathan R. Donnellan argued the cause for appellees. 

With him on the brief were Kristina E. Findikyan, Laura R.

Handman, and Micah J. Ratner. John R. Eastburg entered an

appearance. 

Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney

General for the District of Columbia, Ariel B.

Levinson-Waldman, Senior Counsel to the Attorney General,

and Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, were on the brief for

amicus curiae District of Columbia in support of appellees.

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 1 of 23
2

Seth D. Berlin was on the brief for amici curiae Advance

Publications, Inc., et al. in support of appellees.

Before: ROGERS and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge ROGERS.

Circuit Judge BROWN concurring in the judgment.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge: This case is principally a

defamation action based on the publication of an article by

journalist Mark Warren on Esquire Magazine’s Politics Blog. 

The article was posted one day after the release of a book

entitled “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack

Obama is not Eligible to Be President,” written by Jerome Corsi

and published by Joseph Farah’s WND Books. Farah’s website,

WorldNetDaily, announced the book launch with the headline,

“It’s out! The book that proves Obama’s ineligible: Today’s

the day Corsi is unleashed to tell all about that ‘birth

certificate’” (emphasis in original). Approximately three weeks

earlier, President Obama had released his long-form birth

certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii. Warren’s article

was entitled “BREAKING: Jerome Corsi’s Birther Book

Pulled from Shelves!” (emphasis in original). It stated, in part:

“In a stunning development one day after the release of [the

Corsi book], [Farah] has announced plans to recall and pulp the

entire 200,000 first printing run of the book, as well as

announcing an offer to refund the purchase price to anyone who

has already bought . . . the book.” Approximately ninety

minutes later, Esquire published an “update” on its blog “for

those who didn’t figure it out,” that Warren’s article was

“satire”; the “update” clarified that the article was untrue and

referenced other “serious” Esquire articles on the birth

certificate issue. Farah observed the same day that he thought

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 2 of 23
3

the blog post was a “poorly executed parody.” Also that day,

Warren told The Daily Caller that he had no regrets about

publishing the fictitious article and expressed his negative view

of the book’s author; his statements were published on The

Daily Caller website that day and the following day.

Farah and Corsi filed suit for compensatory and punitive

damages alleging defamation, false light, interference with

business relations, invasion of privacy, and violation of the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) and (B). Esquire for all

defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds, and the district

court dismissed the complaint. Farah and Corsi appeal, 

focusing in their brief principally on the dismissal under the

D.C. Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

(“Anti-SLAPP”) Act, D.C. Code § 16-5501 et. seq., and

dismissal of the Lanham Act claim. Upon de novo review, we

hold that the complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

claim because the blog post was fully protected political satire

and the “update” and Warren’s statements are protected opinion. 

The complaint also fails to state a claim for violation of the

Lanham Act. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the

complaint.

I.

Joseph Farah is the Editor and Chief Executive Officer of

WorldNetDaily.com, a news and commentary Internet

publication which competes with Esquire Magazine. See

Compl. ¶ 2. WND Books is a wholly owned subsidiary of

WorldNetDaily.com. See id. Jerome Corsi is a “worldrenowned author of several New York Times bestsellers . . . and

the author of the newly released book by WND Books, “Where’s

the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is Not

Eligible to be President.” Compl. ¶ 3. These individuals and

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 3 of 23
4

entities have “at all material times covered the controversy

concerning whether or not President Barack Hussein Obama is

a natural-born American citizen eligible to be President.”

Compl. ¶ 8. According to the complaint, see English v. Dist. of

Columbia, 717 F.3d 968, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2013), “[a]bout 25

percent of the American people believe that because President

Barack Obama waited many years to release what he now claims

is his birth certificate, as well as other factors, that the newly

released birth certificate is fraudulent.” Compl. ¶ 10. The

President, “wanting to try to eliminate this issue among voters

and the American populace, . . . recently released what many

people, including [] Corsi, have reason to believe is a fraudulent

birth certificate purporting to show that he was born in Hawaii.”

Compl. ¶ 11.

On the morning of May 18, 2011, at 10:50 a.m., “just as

[Corsi’s] book was released,” Esquire published an online

article by Mark Warren entitled “BREAKING: Jerome Corsi’s

Birther Book Pulled from Shelves!” Compl. ¶ 12 (emphasis

in original). The article contained “false and misleading facts”

about Corsi’s book. Id. The article, on “The Politics Blog,” was

accompanied by a copy of the “Drudge Siren” above an image

of the book’s cover. It read in full:

In a stunning development one day after the release

of Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that

Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, by Dr.

Jerome Corsi, World Net Daily Editor and Chief

Executive Officer Joseph Farah has announced plans to

recall and pulp the entire 200,000 first printing run of

the book, as well as announcing an offer to refund the

purchase price to anyone who has already bought either

a hard copy or electronic download of the book.

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 4 of 23
5

In an exclusive interview, a reflective Farah, who

wrote the book’s foreword and also published Corsi’s

earlier best-selling work, Unfit for Command: Swift

Boat Veterans Speak out Against John Kerry and

Capricorn One: NASA, JFK, and the Great “Moon

Landing” Cover-Up, said that after much serious

reflection, he could not go forward with the project. “I

believe with all my heart that Barack Obama is

destroying this country, and I will continue to stand

against his administration at every turn, but in light of

recent events, this book has become problematic, and

contains what I now believe to be factual

inaccuracies,” he said this morning. “I cannot in good

conscience publish it and expect anyone to believe it.”

When asked if he had any plans to publish a corrected

version of the book, he said cryptically, “There is no

book.” Farah declined to comment on his discussions

of the matter with Corsi.

A source at WND, who requested that his name be

withheld, said that Farah was “rip-shit” when, on April

27, President Obama took the extraordinary step of

personally releasing his “long-form” birth certificate,

thus resolving the matter of Obama’s legitimacy for

“anybody with a brain.”

“He called up Corsi and really tore him a new one,”

says the source. “I mean, we’ll do anything to hurt

Obama, and erase his memory, but we don’t want to

look like fucking idiots, you know? Look, at the end

of the day, bullshit is bullshit.”

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 5 of 23
6

Corsi, who graduated from Harvard and is a

professional journalist, could not be reached for

comment.

According to the complaint, “[i]mmediately” after the blog

posting, “news organizations, readers of WorldNetDaily,

purchasers and distributors of WND Books and others began

contacting [] Farah for confirmation of the story and comment.”

Compl. ¶ 10. Also, “consumers began requesting refunds[,] . . .

book supporters began attacking Farah and Corsi[,] [and] [b]ook

stores . . . began pulling the book from their shelves, or not

offering it for sale at all.” Compl. ¶ 13. Only after Farah

“issued a statement saying he was exploring legal options

against Esquire and Warren did they purport to issue a

disclaimer.” Compl. ¶ 14. This “so-called disclaimer” was “as

false[] [and] misleading . . . as the initial story that was

published” on the website. Id. It read in full:

DEVELOPING . . .

UPDATE, 12:25 p.m., for those who didn’t figure it

out yet, and the many on Twitter for whom it took a

while: We committed satire this morning to point out

the problems with selling and marketing a book that

has had its core premise and reason to exist gutted by

the news cycle, several weeks in advance of

publication. Are its author and publisher chastened? 

Well, no. They double down, and accuse the President

of the United States of perpetrating a fraud on the

world by having released a forged birth certificate. Not

because this claim is in any way based on reality, but

to hold their terribly gullible audience captive to their

lies, and to sell books. This is despicable, and deserves

only ridicule. That’s why we committed satire in the

matter of the Corsi book. Hell, even the president has

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 6 of 23
7

a sense of humor about it all. Some more serious

reporting from us on this whole “birther” phenomenon

here, here, and here. 

Tags: birther book, jerome corsi, where’s the birth

certificate, drudge without context, birthers, wingnuts,

humor

Later that day Warren told The Daily Caller, an online

publication read by an audience that is interested in the “birther”

issue, see Compl. ¶ 15, that he had “no regrets” about posting

the articles and referred to Corsi as an “execrable piece of shit.” 

Id. Warren’s statements were published on The Daily Caller

website on May 18 and 19, 2011, see id., remain on the Internet,

and have been widely published domestically and around the

world. Compl. ¶ 16.

Farah and Corsi, however, “never contemplated, much less

offered, to pull the [Corsi] book from shelves” or “refund

purchases to consumers.” Compl. ¶ 17. Rather, they “believed

at all material times that the contents of the book are accurate

and newsworthy.” Id. Esquire’s representations “resulted in

books being pulled from the shelves by booksellers, harmed

sales and damaged [Farah’s and Corsi’s] goodwill and

reputation . . . among the buying and consuming public.” Id.

On June 28, 2011, Farah and Corsi sued Esquire Magazine,

Inc., Hearst Communications, Inc., and Warren (together

“Esquire”) for defamation, false light, tortious interference with

business relations, and invasion of privacy, as well as violation

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The complaint alleged

that Esquire maliciously made false and defamatory statements

that caused damage to their business, good will, and reputations,

see Compl. ¶¶ 19–20, and “held . . . Farah and Corsi up for

extreme ridicule in the community where they reside and where

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 7 of 23
8

their works are viewed and read.” Compl. ¶ 22. Further, the

complaint alleged that Esquire, with knowledge of Farah’s

“business relationship with distributors and booksellers,”

intentionally interfered with these relationships causing

“abridgment, limitation, breach or termination of these

relationships as concerns the sale of the [Corsi] book.” Compl.

¶¶ 26–28. The complaint alleged a violation of the Lanham Act,

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) and (B) in that Esquire is a

“commercial competitor[]” of Farah and Corsi, and that its

“publication of false and misleading information and description

of fact” “caused confusion, mistake and deception” concerning

the “accuracy, motives, nature, characteristics, and qualities of”

the Corsi book. Compl. ¶¶ 31–32. The complaint sought in

excess of $100 million for actual and compensatory damages,

and punitive damages in excess of $20 million. See Compl. ¶

38.

Esquire moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state

a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It

also filed a special motion to dismiss the tort claims pursuant to

the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, D.C. Code § 16-5501 et seq. To

illustrate the political and social context in which its statements

were made, Esquire attached to its motions the WorldNetDaily

website’s complete archive of articles on President Obama’s

ineligibility to serve, including articles by Farah published

online from September 2009 through August 2011, as well as

samples of Esquire’s satirical publications. See Findikyan Decl.

Exs. 1–46. The district court granted both motions, concluding,

inter alia, that Esquire’s statements were protected under the

First Amendment and that the Lanham Act did not apply to the

non-commercial speech at issue. See Farah v. Esquire, 863 F.

Supp. 2d 29, 39–41 (D.D.C. 2012). 

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 8 of 23
9

II.

To meet the requirements for defamation under District of

Columbia law, a plaintiff must prove (1) that he was the subject

of a false and defamatory statement; (2) that the statement was

published to a third party; (3) that publishing the statement was

at least negligent; and (4) that the plaintiff suffered either actual

or legal harm. See Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, 712 F.3d 572,

578 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (citing Crowley v. N. Am. Telecomms.

Ass’n, 691 A.2d 1169, 1173 n.2 (D.C. 1997)). A statement is

“defamatory” if it tends to injure the plaintiff in his trade,

profession or community standing, or to lower him in the

estimation of the community. See Moss v. Stockard, 580 A.2d

1011, 1023 (D.C. 1990). This court, in reviewing the dismissal

of the complaint, “must assume, as the complaint alleges, the

falsity of any express or implied factual statements made” in the

publications at issue. Weyrich v. New Republic, Inc., 235 F.3d

617, 623 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The court must also assume that

Esquire made such statements with the requisite state of mind. 

Id. And, “[i]n determining whether a complaint states a claim,

the court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint,

documents attached thereto or incorporated therein, and matters

of which it may take judicial notice.” Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. v.

Chao, 508 F.3d 1052, 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Stewart v.

Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 471 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). Judicial

notice is properly taken of publicly available historical articles

such as were attached to Esquire’s motions to dismiss. See Fed,

R. Evid. 201(b); Wash. Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291

(D.C. Cir. 1991); Wash. Ass’n for Television & Children v.

FCC, 712 F.2d 677, 683 n.12 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing 3 K.

DAVIS,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE, §§ 15:1-15:4 (1980)).

“Because the threat or actual imposition of pecuniary

liability for alleged defamation may impair the unfettered

exercise of . . . First Amendment freedoms, the Constitution

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 9 of 23
10

imposes stringent limitations upon the permissible scope of such

liability.” Greenbelt Coop. Publ’g Ass’n, Inc. v. Bresler, 398

U.S. 6, 12 (1970). Various doctrinal protections preserve “the

breathing space which freedoms of expression require in order

to survive.” Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19

(1990) (quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). 

Indeed, this court has observed that summary proceedings are

essential in the First Amendment area because if a suit entails

“long and expensive litigation,” then the protective purpose of

the First Amendment is thwarted even if the defendant

ultimately prevails. Wash. Post Co. v. Keogh, 365 F.2d 965, 968

(D.C. Cir. 1966). 

Under the First Amendment, liability for defamation arises

only if, at a minimum, a defendant’s statement “reasonably

implies false and defamatory facts.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20. 

Implicit in this requirement are three protections: First, the First

Amendment “provides protection for statements that cannot

‘reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts’ about an

individual.” Id. (quoting Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S.

46, 50 (1988)); see also Weyrich, 235 F.3d at 624. Where a

defendant’s statement “cannot be construed as representations

of fact,” Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat’l Assoc. of Letter

Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 284 (1974), there can be no

defamation. Second, “a statement on matters of public concern

must be provable as false before there can be liability under state

defamation law, at least in situations . . . where a media

defendant is involved.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 19–20. In other

words, a defendant cannot be held liable unless the alleged

defamatory statement or implied premise is “verifiable.” 

Moldea v. N.Y. Times Co., 22 F.3d 310, 317 (D.C. Cir. 1994)

(“Moldea II”). Where a statement is so imprecise or subjective

that it is not capable of being proved true or false, it is not

actionable in defamation. See Weyrich, 235 F.3d at 624–26. 

And third, a defendant will not face liability unless the disputed

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 10 of 23
11

statement is “reasonably capable of defamatory meaning.” Id.

at 623. These threshold inquiries are questions of law for the

court to decide. See Weyrich, 235 F.3d at 623–24, 627; Moldea

v. N.Y. Times Co., 15 F.3d 1137, 1142, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1994)

(“Moldea I”).

To determine whether Esquire’s statements could

reasonably be understood as stating or implying actual facts

about Farah and Corsi and, if so, whether those statements were

verifiable and were reasonably capable of defamatory meaning,

the “publication must be taken as a whole, and in the sense in

which it would be understood by the readers to whom it was

addressed.” Afro-American Publ’g Co. v. Jaffe, 366 F.2d 649,

655 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (en banc). “[T]he First Amendment

demands” that the court assess the disputed statements “in their

proper context.” Weyrich, 235 F.3d at 625. Context is critical

because “it is in part the settings of the speech in question that

makes their . . . nature apparent, and which helps determine the

way in which the intended audience will receive them.” Moldea

II, 22 F.3d at 314. “Context” includes not only the immediate

context of the disputed statements, but also the type of

publication, the genre of writing, and the publication’s history

of similar works. See Letter Carriers, 418 U.S. at 284–86;

Moldea II, 22 F.3d at 314–15. The “broader social context,”

too, is vital to a proper understanding of the disputed statements. 

Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970, 983 (D.C. Cir. 1984). After all,

“[s]ome types of writing . . . by custom or convention signal to

readers . . . that what is being read . . . is likely to be opinion, not

fact. It is one thing to be assailed as a corrupt public official by

a soapbox orator and quite another to be labelled corrupt in a

research monograph detailing the causes and cures of corruption

in public service.” Id.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly extended First

Amendment protection to statements that, in context, do not

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 11 of 23
12

reasonably state or imply defamatory falsehoods in the requisite

sense. In Greenbelt, 398 U.S. at 13–15, the Court concluded

that use of the word “blackmail” to describe the plaintiff’s hardnosed negotiating tactics could not reasonably be understood to

mean the plaintiff had committed a criminal offense. In context,

“even the most careless reader must have perceived that the

word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet

used by those who considered [the plaintiff’s] negotiating

position extremely unreasonable.” Id. at 14. Consequently, “the

imposition of liability . . . was constitutionally impermissible”

because “as a matter of constitutional law, the

word ‘blackmail’ . . . was not slander when spoken, and not libel

when reported in the Greenbelt News Review.” Id. at 13. 

Similarly, in Letter Carriers, 418 U.S. at 283–87, the Court held

that the use of the word “traitor” in a literary definition

accompanying a union-published “List of Scabs” could not

reasonably be understood to accuse the listed individuals of

treason, because the word was used “in a loose, figurative sense”

and was “merely rhetorical hyperbole, a lusty and imaginative

expression of the contempt felt by union members.” And in

Hustler Magazine, 485 U.S. at 50, the Court held that an ad

parody depicting the Rev. Jerry Falwell in an incestuous

relationship with his mother could not support an emotional

distress claim because the offending speech “could not

reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the

public figure involved.” So instructed, this court held in

Weyrich, 235 F.3d at 624–25, that a political magazine’s

statement that a conservative leader “began to suffer bouts of

pessimism and paranoia” following his successful rise to power

was not actionable because, in context, the description was

merely “rhetorical sophistry, not a verifiably false attribution in

fact of a ‘debilitating mental condition’” as the plaintiff had

contended.

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 12 of 23
13

Esquire maintains that Farah and Corsi have no cognizable

defamation claim because the blog post is fully protected satire. 

“Satire” is a long-established artistic form that uses means such

as “ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, parody, [or] caricature”

to censure the “vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings” of an

individual or society. Satire, ENCYC. BRITANNICA ONLINE,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524958/satire (last

visited Nov. 1, 2013). Although satire has been employed since

the time of Ancient Greece, it remains “one of the most

imprecise” of all literary designations — a notoriously broad

and complex genre whose “forms are as varied as its victims.” 

Id. Sometimes satire is funny. See, e.g., Saturday Night Live

(NBC television broadcast); T HE O NION ,

http://www.theonion.com (last visited Nov. 1, 2013). 

Othertimes it may seem cruel and mocking, attacking the core

beliefs of its target. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine, 485 U.S. 46. 

And sometimes it is absurd, as in the classic example of

Jonathan Swift’s proposal to “solve” the problem of Irish

poverty by killing and eating Irish children. See JONATHAN

SWIFT, AMODEST PROPOSAL (1729). Satire’s unifying element

is the use of wit “to expose something foolish or vicious to

criticism.” Satire, ENCYC.BRITANNICA ONLINE. A “parody” is

to the same effect: the style of an individual or work is closely

imitated for comic effect or in ridicule. See MERRIAM

WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY at 846 (10th ed. 1993)

(“parody”); see id. at 1038 (“satire”).

Despite its literal falsity, satirical speech enjoys First

Amendment protection. Consistent with the “actual facts”

requirement, “the ‘statement’ that the plaintiff must prove

false . . . is not invariably the literal phrase published but rather

what a reasonable reader would have understood the author to

have said.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 23–24 (Brennan and

Marshall, JJ., in dissent agreeing with majority); see also

Hustler Magazine, 485 U.S. at 50. Thus, a satire or parody must

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 13 of 23
14

be assessed in the appropriate context; it is not actionable if it

“cannotreasonably be interpreted asstating actualfacts about an

individual.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 (quotation marks and

alterations omitted). In light of the special characteristics of

satire, of course, “what a reasonable reader would have

understood” is more informed by an assessment of her wellconsidered view than by her immediate yet transitory reaction. 

Without First Amendment protection, there is a risk that public

debate would “suffer for lack of ‘imaginative expression’” and

“the ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ which has traditionally added much

to the discourse of our Nation.” Id. (quoting Hustler Magazine,

485 U.S. at 53–55). 

Farah and Corsi do not suggest that satire, as a genre, lacks

constitutional protection. Rather, in their view Esquire’s

particular attempt at satire is not protected because reasonable

readers would take the fictitious blog post literally. They point

to the inquiries they received following the blog post, as well as

to Esquire’s own “update” clarifying that the post was satire, as

evidence that many actual readers were misled by Esquire’s

story. But it is the nature of satire that not everyone “gets it”

immediately. For example, when Daniel Defoe first published

The Shortest Way with the Dissenters, an anonymous satirical

pamphlet against religious persecution, it was initially welcomed

by the church establishment Defoe sought to ridicule. See

JAMES SUTHERLAND,ENGLISH SATIRE 83–84 (1958). Similarly,

Benjamin Franklin’s “Speech of Miss Polly Baker,” a fictitious

news story mocking New England’s harsh treatment of unwed

mothers, was widely republished in both England and the United

States as actual news. See MAX HALL, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN &

POLLY BAKER:THE HISTORY OF A LITERARY DECEPTION 33–35,

87–88 (1960).

Indeed, satire is effective as social commentary precisely

because it is often grounded in truth. In a similar case involving

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 14 of 23
15

a satirical news article, the Texas Supreme Court observed that

satire works by “distort[ing] . . . the familiar with the pretense of

reality in order to convey an underlying critical message.” New

Times v. Isaacks, 146 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. 2004) (quotation

marks omitted). Here, too, Esquire’s story conveyed its

message by layering fiction upon fact. Cf. Weyrich, 235 F.3d at

626. The test, however, is not whether some actual readers were

misled, but whether the hypothetical reasonable reader could be

(after time for reflection). See Pring v. Penthouse Int’l, Ltd.,

695 F.2d 438, 442–43 (10th Cir. 1982); see also Mink v. Knox,

613 F.3d 995, 1007 (10th Cir. 2010); New Times, 126 S.W.2d at

155, 157–58; Garvelink v. Detroit News, 522 N.W.2d 883, 886

(Mich. 1994); Hoppe v. Hearst Corp., 770 P.2d 203, 206 (Wash.

1989); Myers v. Boston Magazine Co., Inc., 403 N.E.2d 376,

379–80 (Mass. 1980). And to the extent Farah and Corsi rely on

Esquire’s “update” to demonstrate reader confusion, Esquire can

hardly be penalized for attempting to set the record straight and

avoid confusion by those readers who did not at first “get” the

satirical nature of Warren’s article. 

Considering the blog post in its context, the reasonable

reader could not understand Warren’s article to be conveying

“real news” about Farah and Corsi. The article’s primary

intended audience — that is, readers of “The Politics Blog” —

would have been familiar with Esquire’s history of publishing

satirical stories, with recent topics ranging from Osama Bin

Laden’s television-watching habits to “Sex Tips from Donald

Rumsfeld.” See Findikyan Decl. Exs. 35–42. At the same time,

followers of “The Politics Blog” were politically informed

readers. The “update” notes that Esquire.com had previously

featured several “serious” reports on the birth certificate issue. 

Farah and Corsi acknowledge that they were well-known leaders

of the movement questioning President Obama’s eligibility, see

Compl. ¶¶ 8–9, and admit that readers of Esquire.com would

have been familiar with WorldNetDaily and its positions, see

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 15 of 23
16

Compl. ¶ 15; Appellants’ Br. 15. The postings on Farah’s own

website show that he has been writing on the issue for years, and

Corsi’s then-forthcoming book had recently received publicity

on the Drudge Report. Findikyan Decl. Exs. 1, 19. It defies

common sense to suppose that readers of “The Politics Blog”

were unaware of the birth certificate controversy or the heated

debate it had provoked.

With that baseline of knowledge, reasonable readers of

“The Politics Blog” would recognize the prominent indicia of

satire in the Warren article. Most notably, the very substance of

the story would alert the reasonable reader to the possibility that

the post was satirical. The essence of the fictitious story was

that Farah, a self-described leader (along with Corsi) of the

movement to challenge President Obama’s eligibility to serve,

see Appellants’ Br. 31, had suddenly and without any warning

decided to recall and “pulp” the Corsi book the very day after it

was released. The supposed basis for this decision was

President Obama’s earlier release of his long-form birth

certificate; yet that release occurred three weeks before Corsi’s

book was published, and, as Farah acknowledges, he and Corsi

remained (and still remain) committed to the book even after

that event. See Compl. ¶¶ 11, 17. After the release of the birth

certificate, Farah appeared on MSNBC and published more than

40 articles on WorldNetDaily continuing to promote the book. 

See Findikyan Decl. Exs. 7, 21, 22–25; Farah, 863 F. Supp.2d

at 32. The day of the Corsi book’s release — the day before

Esquire posted its fictitious story — WorldNetDaily announced

the publication on its website with an article entitled, “It’s out!

The book that proves Obama’s ineligible: Today’s the day

Corsi is unleashed to tell all about that ‘birth certificate.’”

Findikyan Decl. Ex. 26. It is inconceivable that Farah would

reverse course so abruptly, as Esquire’s fictitious story claimed. 

Readers of “The Politics Blog” would have recognized that the

article was “reporting” events and statements that were totally

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 16 of 23
17

inconsistent with Farah’s and Corsi’s well-publicized views, and

could not reasonably have taken the story literally. 

A number of humorous or outlandish details in the blog post

also betray its satirical nature. The story attributes to Corsi an

obviously fictitious book entitled, Capricorn One: NASA, JFK,

and the Great “Moon Landing” Cover-Up. Of all prominent

cover-ups featured in the news in recent years, a moon cover-up

— much less “the Great ‘Moon Landing’ Cover-Up” — was not

among them. Further, the story includes incredible counterfactual statements like, “[Farah] said cryptically, ‘There is no

book.’” Farah had published and released the book and then

confirmed the next day to The Daily Caller that the book “was

selling briskly. I am 100 percent behind it.” Findikyan Decl.

Ex. 28. The story repeatedly attributes to a “source at WND”

quotes that are highly unorthodox for a real news story, such as

Farah was “rip-shit,” “bullshit is bullshit,” and “we don’t want

to look like fucking idiots, you know?”

Stylistic elements, such as the exclamatory headline and the

use of the “Drudge Siren” symbol, also would indicate to the

reasonable reader that the story was not serious news. Like

Farah, a reader familiar with WorldNetDaily would recognize

the headline as a parody of WorldNetDaily’s own

sensationalistic headlines. The Drudge Siren (supplemented

here by the tag “Drudge Without Context”) is a symbol of

sensationalistic news from a self-described conservative best

known for breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Matt

Drudge , E NCYC . B RITANNICA O NLINE ,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/171936/MattDrudge (last visited Nov. 1, 2013). Readers familiar with the

birth certificate controversy would be aware that Corsi’s book

had received substantial publicity on the Drudge Report. 

Findikyan Decl. Ex. 19. For anyone with knowledge of that

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 17 of 23
18

context, Esquire’s use of the symbol would be understood as an

ironic joke.

Even if none of these elements standing alone — the story’s

substance, outlandish and humorous details, stylistic elements

— would convince the reasonable reader that the blog post was

satirical, taken in context and as a whole they could lead to no

other conclusion. Farah immediately recognized the blog post

as a “parody,” although he told The Daily Caller that in his view

it was “a very poorly executed” one. Findikyan Decl. Ex. 28. 

Admittedly, apart from its headline, the article did not employ

the sort of imitation and exaggerated mimicry that are typical of

parody. But satire is a far broader concept than parody,

incorporating a variety of literary forms and devices. And

poorly executed or not, the reasonable reader would have to

suspend virtually all that he or she knew to be true of Farah’s

and Corsi’s views on the issue of President Obama’s eligibility

to serve in order to conclude the story was reporting true facts. 

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. To the contrary, almost everything

about the story and the nature of the issue itself showed it was

political speech aimed at critiquing Farah’s and Corsi’s public

position on the issue of President Obama’s eligibility to hold

office even after he had released his long-form birth certificate

showing he was born in Hawaii. Farah and Corsi were entitled

to express their opinion that its delayed release signaled it was

a forgery, but they could not then sue for defamation because

Esquire conveyed its contrary view by using satire, rather than

straightforward attack. Because the blog post was entitled to

First Amendment protection, the district court properly

dismissed the defamation count as to the blog post for failure to

state a claim.

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 18 of 23
19

B.

Likewise, Esquire’s “update” and Warren’s postpublication comments to The Daily Caller are protected because

they merely represented Esquire’s interpretation of Farah’s and

Corsi’s publications on the well-known facts underlying the

dispute over the President’s birthplace. In Moldea I, 15 F.3d at

1144–45 (citations omitted), this court explained that

when a writer gives a statement of opinion that is based

upon true facts that are revealed to readers or which are

already known to readers, such opinions generally are

not actionable so long as the opinion does not

otherwise imply unstated defamatory facts. Because

the reader understands that such supported opinions

represent the writer’s interpretation of the facts

presented, and because the reader is free to draw his or

her own conclusions based upon those facts, this type

of statement is not actionable in defamation. Thus, the

statement “In my opinion Jones is a liar because he

cheats on his taxes” would not be actionable if Jones

had in fact recently been convicted of tax evasion, so

long as the statement did not imply additional, unstated

bases for calling Jones a liar. While it might be wholly

unreasonable to attack Jones’ veracity on the basis of

his tax returns, a reader would be free to make his or

her own assessment of the facts presented.

The “update” and Warren’s comments used strong rhetoric and

salty language, but were nonetheless public statements on an

issue of national concern; such speech lies at the heart of the

First Amendment. See, e.g., Greenbelt, 398 U.S. at 11–12. 

The “update” statement that Farah and Corsi are spreading

“lies” is protected opinion because it is based on Esquire’s

revealed premise that Farah and Corsi have promoted the Corsi

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 19 of 23
20

book notwithstanding evidence that its central claim is false. 

The “update” statement regarding Farah’s and Corsi’s “terribly

gullible audience” is also protected opinion, premised on the fact

that a sizeable minority of people — by Farah’s estimation, 25%

of the American populace, see Compl. ¶ 10 — believes in a

position that Esquire considers absurd. The statement that Farah

and Corsi are not motivated by genuine belief, but rather by a

desire to hold their readers “captive” and “to sell books” cannot,

in context, be reasonably read to imply special knowledge of

their actual motives. It is based, like the other statements, on

Esquire’s revealed premise that Farah and Corsi continue to

“sell[] and market[] a book that has had its core premise and

reason to exist gutted by the news cycle, several weeks in

advance of publication.” Any reasonable reader of political blog

commentary knows that it often contains conjecture and strong

language, see, e.g., Findikyan Decl. Exs. 2–5, particularly where

the discussion concerns such a polarizing topic as the

President’s birth certificate. A reasonable reader would

understand Warren’s statements to be expressions of his own

opinion. His reference to Corsi as an “execrable piece of shit,”

does not appear to convey any factual assertion, but is rather

“the sort of loose, figurative or hyperbolic language which

would negate the impression” that a factual statement was being

made. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 21. And to the extent the

comment implies the same factual premise as the “update,” it is

similarly protected.

Because the “update” and Warren’s post-publication

comments to The Daily Caller are not actionable in defamation,

the district court properly dismissed the defamation count based

on those statements for failure to state a claim. 

C.

Because Farah’s and Corsi’s defamation claim fails, so do

their other tort claims based upon the same allegedly defamatory

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 20 of 23
21

speech. “[A] plaintiff may not use related causes of action to

avoid the constitutional requisites of a defamation claim.” 

Moldea II, 22 F.3d at 319–20 (citing Cohen v. Cowles Media

Co., 501 U.S. 663, 671 (1991)). The First Amendment

considerations that apply to defamation therefore apply also to

Farah’s and Corsi’s counts for false light, see Weyrich, 235 F.3d

at 628, and tortious interference. See Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist.

No. R-1 v. Moody’s Investor Servs., Inc., 175 F.3d 848, 857

(10th Cir. 1999); Beverly Hills Foodland, Inc. v. United Food &

Commercial Workers Union, Local 655, 39 F.3d 191, 196–97

(8th Cir. 1994); Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049, 1058

(9th Cir. 1990). Farah and Corsi do not pursue their invasion of

privacy claim on appeal and it is forfeited. See Burke v. Air Serv

Int’l, Inc., 685 F.3d 1102, 1105 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

III.

The Lanham (Trademark) Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.,

prohibits deceptive trade practices such as false advertising and

trademark infringement. Section 1125 provides for civil liability

in the case of

[a]ny person who, on or in connection with any goods

or services, . . . uses in commerce any word, term,

name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof,

or any . . . false or misleading description of fact, or

false or misleading representation of fact, which–

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause

mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation,

connection, or association of such person with

another person, or as to the . . . sponsorship, or

approval of his or her goods, services, or

commercial activities by another person, or

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 21 of 23
22

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion,

misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities,

or geographic origin of his or another person’s

goods, services, or commercial activities[.]

15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(1)(A) & (B) (emphasis added).

Every circuit court of appeals to address the scope of these

provisions has held that they apply only to commercial speech. 

See, e.g., Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic

Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008); Bosley Med.

Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005); see also

Farah, 863 F. Supp. 2d at 40 (collecting cases). For example,

the Tenth Circuit in Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 527 F.3d 1045, 

dismissed the Lanham Act claims against the creators of a

parody website that used the name and web design elements of

a religious bookstore to critique the bookstore’s views. The

court explained that “[u]nless there is a competing good or

service labeled or associated with the plaintiff’s trademark, the

concerns of the Lanham Act are not invoked.” Id. at 1054. 

Similarly, the Ninth Circuit in Bosley, 403 F.3d at 679, held that

there was no liability where an unsatisfied hair transplant

customer had used Bosley’s mark for purposes of criticism,

because the customer’s “use of the Bosley mark [was] not in

connection with a sale of goods or services — it [was] in

connection with the expression of his opinion about Bosley’s

goods and services.” As support for the assertion that “many

courts have applied the Lanham Act to non-commercial speech,”

Appellants’ Br. 14, Farah and Corsi cite only a self-described

“‘promotional goods’ case” involving the title of a talk-radio

news show, see PAM Media, Inc. v. American Research Corp.,

889 F. Supp. 1403, 1407 (D.Colo. 1995).

The statements posted on the Esquire.com “Politics Blog”

cannot plausibly be viewed as commercial speech under

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 22 of 23
23

§ 1125(a)(1)(A) or (B) of the Lanham Act. See Compl. Count

IV. Farah and Corsi do not allege that Esquire is selling or

promoting a competing book. Instead, they assert that

“generally” Esquire is their competitor, Compl. ¶ 31, and

maintain that they too “write frequently about the birth

certificate and ‘natural born citizen’ issues,” and that “readers

frequently [] read publications that contain ‘points and

counterpoints.’” Appellants’ Br. 15. Of course, writers write

and publishers publish political tracts for commercial purposes,

and it is possible that the kinds of commercial methods made

illegal by the Lanham Act could be applied to such tracts. The

actions alleged, however, do not involve such methods. The

mere fact that the parties may compete in the marketplace of

ideas is not sufficient to invoke the Lanham Act. To the

contrary, it reinforces Esquire’s position that its blog post was

political speech aimed at critiquing Farah’s and Corsi’s position

on the birth certificate question. As our sister circuits have

emphasized, “trademark rights cannot be used ‘to quash an

unauthorized use of the mark by another who is communicating

ideas or expressing points of view.’” Utah Lighthouse Ministry,

527 F.3d at 1052–53 (citing L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers,

Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 29 (1st Cir. 1987); Bosley, 403 F.3d at 675). 

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and we

have no occasion to address Farah’s and Corsi’s other

challenges to the dismissal of their complaint because our

analysis moots any consideration of the Anti-SLAPP Act.

USCA Case #12-7055 Document #1467977 Filed: 11/26/2013 Page 23 of 23