[Paul Ross]

While a law suit is always possible to the excessively litigous, the defenses in this case would be slam dunk. Under New York Times v. Sullivan, these cards are all legitimate uses. The individuals are public figures and have made themselves so expressly on the war issue. This would defeat a claim of misappropriation of personnae. Parody would be an almost complete defense in its own right. And in this particular case, not even necessary, as indeed, as noted by others, the defense of truth would defeat any assertion of defamation. And I think NewsMax has a deep enough pocketed backer to take on the deck of weasels. So I guess I wouldn't worry too much.

[ex-Texan]

You are correct about NYT v. Sullivan in that a plaintiff must prove 'reckless disregard' for the truth or falsity of the defamatory allegation.

I had in mind another type of case based on other less obvious allegations. 'Nuff said. Very creative lawyering nearly always finds a way. Once got a settlement from a State Bar after I sued them for defamation of a non-lawyer client who was accused of practising law without a license.

Know all about the law of defamation and related torts.