Thanks for this. Two responses:
(1) “It is surely unethical for a publication to publish an article under someone else’s name — in which they totally misrepresent their views — unless they could reasonably assume that the audience would understand the piece was meant satirically.”
They are clearly making that assumption. When Jeff complained, they flagged it more prominently as satire.
(2) “Given in this case, there are clear examples of intelligent reasonable people who did not understand that, it seems reasonable that Jeff would protest, and appropriate that Esquire should do something about it.”
But is it reasonable for Esquire to take it down after publishing it and after flagging it as satire? This seems to be an executive decision (indeed, a Hearst decision), not an editorial decision. I think we can safely assume that the Esquire editors felt justified in publishing the piece and have not changed their minds. Jeff thinks they are wrong, but I’d like to hear their side.