Skip to content

x

t

Menu
  • Home
  • What’s ConWebWatch?
Menu

WND Is Still Misleading Readers About Lawsuit Against Esquire

Posted on October 4, 2013

Given that WorldNetDaily has been utterly dishonest about how it has presented its defamation lawsuit against Esquire magazine to its readers, it’s no surprise that WND’s article about a court proceeding in the case would be similarly dishonest.

Garth Kant does his best in an Oct. 3 article to frame it as a great First Amendment battle:

Federal Judge Stephen F. Williams asked the attorney for Esquire magazine what in the First Amendment permitted his client to accuse someone of making money off of gullible readers?

That question suggested the crux of the matter in the lawsuit brought by WND against Esquire: If a political attack is called satire, is any message permissible, even if it cause damages?

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments Thursday in Joseph Farah v. Esquire Magazine. Farah is the founder and CEO of WND.com.

In fact, as Kant concedes later in the article, WND is appealing the dismissal of the lawsuit, which was granted last year. Unsurprisingly, Kant is heavy on telling WND’s side of the case and very light on Esquire’s response to WND’s claims.

Therefore, there’s no mention of the fact that one key reason the lawsuit was dismissed is because, according to the judge, WND editor Joseph Farah had admitted the Esquire blog post was satire before it became “inconvenient” for him to do so.

Kant also repeats failed lawyer Larry Klayman’s claims that “Esquire and Hearst lied to federal courts in their defense of the article” by claiming that the article had been tagged as “humor” on the website. In fact, as we’ve documented, it’s Farah and Klayman who appear to be lying — the screenshots WND submitted to the court cut off the part of the post where the tags normally appear.

Considering that Farah had submitted an affidavit “under penalty of perjury” stating that there were no tags, there may be a case to be made that Farah has committed perjury.

Kant certainly isn’t going to tell his readers that the man who signs his paycheck may be guilty of perjury.

UPDATE: An alert reader caught that Kant referred to Larry Flynt as “the late publisher of Hustler.”  Last we checked, Flynt is still very much alive.

Share on Social Media
xfacebookpinterestredditemailmastodon

Categories

Archives

Aaron Klein Alex Christy Bill Donohue Bob Unruh Brent Bozell Christopher Ruddy Chuck Norris Clay Waters Colin Flaherty Craig Bannister Curtis Houck Dan Gainor David Kupelian Dick Morris Ellis Washington Elon Musk Erik Rush Fox News Fred Lucas Gabriel Hays George Soros Hunter Biden Ilana Mercer Jack Cashill James Hirsen Jane Orient Jeffrey Lord Jerome Corsi Jesse Lee Peterson Joe Kovacs John Gizzi Jorge Bonilla Joseph Farah Joseph Vazquez Karine Jean-Pierre Larry Klayman Leo Hohmann Les Kinsolving Mark Finkelstein Mark Levin Matt Philbin Michael Brown Michael W. Chapman Mychal Massie Nicholas Fondacaro Noel Sheppard P.J. Gladnick Penny Starr Rachel Alexander Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Ronald Kessler Scott Lively Scott Whitlock Susan Jones Terry Jeffrey Tierin-Rose Mandelburg Tim Graham Tom Blumer Tom Olohan Wayne Allyn Root

  • Facebook
  • X
  • Mastodon
©2026 x | Design: Newspaperly WordPress Theme