Satire is often “false.

(b) caused economic damage; and

That is, of course, according to Corsi and Farah. It is not a statement of fact.

(c) would not have been considered satire by most of its audience.

This is factually wrong. People other than those who support Corsi took it as satire. The “viral tweets” were from “birthers” – not from people saying it was a factual news story.

The article was in a blog – a political blog – and not a part of the Esquire “news” page or magazine. The idea that some people did not see or understand the satire takes nothing away from the fact that the piece was satire.

The publication of the news story itself was prima facie tortious because it was (a) false; (b) caused economic damage; and (c) would not have been considered satire by most of its audience. The argument that it would have been obvious to a reasonable reader that it was satire because it was headed “breaking news” or the like just show how much of an uphill battle Corsi has in the court of public opinion. That is to say, the arguments are clearly fallacious, and the fact that they’re taken seriously shows how people’s emotions about Corsi are clouding the legal facts (hint: “breaking news” is not an “obvious signal” for satire, even though the Onion uses those terms).

Poser and others are correct that, as in many complaints, the damages sought are not going to be collected. When damages are difficult to calculate or estimate at this early stage in the litigation, as in this case, there are sometimes technical pleading reasons to included aspirational damage estimates in the complaint. It doesn’t prejudice the defendant, at the pleading stage, and the damages will be reassessed after discovery and summary judgment phases of the litigation.

The fact, however, that Esquire’s characterization of the article as “satire” is being so widely accepted, and that for instance people here argue that the words “breaking news” was an “obvious signal” of satire, illustrate that as a matter of legal reality Corsi has little chance to prevail. But that’s only because he’s so unpopular. As a matter of black-letter law the original Esquire article was tortious and Esquire is liable for the damages they caused.

I couldn’t believe a reputable lawyer would file such a ludicrous case. Then I saw the counsel of record is Larry Klayman.

The “breaking news!” didn’t give you a clue that it was a “Onion style parody?”

Although Esquire now claims the article is “satirical”, a reader could not have reasonably inferred that from the article itself, at the time it was published.

Hmmmm…. can you tell me where I can get a copy of “Capricorn One: NASA, JFK, and the Great “Moon Landing” Cover-Up” by Corsi then?

Or did you not catch that?

If you had, wouldn’t that be a reasonable clue that the article was satirical in nature?