Comparing “Borat” to the socially conscious work of Charlie Chaplin and Stanley Kubrick, the makers of the hit “mockumentary” have launched their attack on the merits of a privacy suit filed by two fraternity brothers.

A Los Angeles judge last month denied the frat brothers injunctive relief and, in an anti-SLAPP motion that reads at times like a studio publicity release, Twentieth Century Fox and others involved in the production of “Borat” now say the entire suit should be dismissed on free-speech grounds.

“Borat is part of a rich cinematic tradition of using mockery, shtick and slapstick humor to diminish the power of political, social and cultural oppressors by exposing the absurdity of their systems, symbols, and control (see, e.g., Charlie Chaplin's 'The Dictator' and Stanley Kubrick's 'Dr. Strangelove'),” the brief proclaims.

The John Doe plaintiffs -– members of a fraternity at the University of South Carolina who have been identified as Justin Seay and Christopher Rotunda –- alleged in their complaint that “Borat” field supervisor Todd Schulman fraudulently induced them into appearing in the film by, among other things, getting them drunk and that the movie falsely portrayed them as racists.

But according to the defense, the students signed liability releases “before drinks were served” and those waivers are a “complete defense” to all their claims.

In one of the most provocative comments captured in “Borat,” Seay expresses regret that slavery is no longer allowed in America. After filming was over, Fox says, Schulman asked him “whether he really believed the bigoted statements he had made or was just 'play-acting.'”

“[Seay] confirmed his belief in those negative views,” Fox attorney Walter R. Sadler (Leopold, Petrich & Smith, Los Angeles) writes in the anti-SLAPP motion. “All the participants told Schulman how much they enjoyed participating in the event and thanked him profusely.”

In an opposition to the motion, plaintiffs' attorney Olivier A. Taillieu argues that the anti-SLAPP law does not apply because “the conduct from which this Complaint arises is the lies that were told in order to induce the Plaintiffs to sign a release.”

“Plaintiffs do not challenge the movie's overall themes, whatever those might be –- rather, they contend that Defendants' statements to them, individually, were false. That is not an issue of public interest,” the brief says.

The motion applies only to the frat brothers' case but it may well provide the template for the defense to the four other lawsuits which have so far been filed against the producers of “Borat” and star Sacha Baron Cohen.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph S. Biderman is scheduled to hear the motion Feb. 13.