The editor and chief wack-job of the World News Daily, Joseph Farrah, is about to sue Esquire over a parody that the magazine did recently announcing that he was recalling the latest WND published pulp fiction questioning Obama’s birth certificate. The definition of the word "parody" is "a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing." I wonder if Farrah, or his lawyer, or both, understand how the First Amendment is involved in suits of this nature. Could it be that the purpose of the suit is not to right a wrong, but to bring attention to a cause quite undeserving of such attention? If so, would that be considered a frivolous lawsuit?
Let’s ask John Stossel. We know that he hates lawyers. He feels the same about lawsuits, unless he is the one filing the lawsuit. So tell us John – where do you stand? Is this a frivolous lawsuit? You are a member of the media – what does the First Amendment mean to you (while I am on the subject, how about the Seventh Amendment?)? Operators are standing by waiting on your call.
