Clicking on that leads you to the scam/attack piece. Punk pamphleteer, far from journalism.
SATIRE ?
Do you really want to live in a country where writers are sued for writing political satire?
There can be a fine line between satire and libel. The Esquire piece looked perfectly legitimate, even upon multiple re-readings after the “it’s satire” disclaimer was added. I don’t see what is “satirical” about the piece at all, esp. in light of the feds actually buying up all copies of a book (name escapes me, gave too much info about military activity) and pulping it some time last year or so.
Given the circumstances of this week’s expulsion of a reporter from the WH press pool, I could see someone going “ya know, he did release the BC, so how about you just make that book, ya know, go away...”
So what was “satirical” about that piece? Oh, and “satire” does not automatically confer protection from being sued for damages, even if it was funny.
No, I don’t.
Political satire is fine because the author is protected from being sued by politicans or those in the political arena. Smearing Corsi and Farrah and the topic of the book is fine. But trying to ruin the sale of a product - a book - by flasely claiming it was discontinued might not be protected speech.
There have been many cases where businesses have sued people for making flase claims about their products with the intention/or outcome of harming the sales of that product. There are damages for verbal and published lies outside the political arena. I look at the Farrah case here as an attack of deception on his product and it’s market status; not the content of his product.
Clicking on that leads you to the scam/attack piece. Punk pamphleteer, far from journalism.
SATIRE ?