Posted on 10/07/2009 5:04:49 AM PDT by steve-b
I don't know if you've ever seen the Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Girl in 1990 website, but it's fairly amusing. It's a political satire of the style of argument Glenn Beck likes to engage in, which involves requiring that someone prove a negative ("prove you didn't do X") and making claims in the form of an interrogative ("Hey, I'm just asking questions here. I'm not saying he did this. What's wrong with asking questions?").
Well now Beck is trying to kill the site by making a formal complaint (PDF) to an international internet governing body, the World Intellectual Property Organization. He wants the domain name taken away from the person who registered it.
Why would he do that rather than file, say, a libel suit? Because he knows he would lose a libel suit. He is a public figure and the site is clearly satirical. Under precedents like Falwell v Flynt, it is virtually impossible to win such a suit. The attorney for the site owner, Marc Randazza, has filed a response brief (PDF) that is hilarious in its attack on Beck's thin-skinned and legally dubious argument. For instance, on the notion that someone might think the site was serious or that it was affiliated with Beck himself, he responds:
There is no indication that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to confuse anyone searching for Mr. Beck's own website, nor that anyone was unintentionally confused - even initially. Only an abject imbecile could believe that the domain name would have any connection to the Complainant.That's brilliant. I like this lawyer. He also includes examples of Beck using exactly the same rhetorical techniques. For example, in questioning Muslim legislator Keith Ellison, Beck said:We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent's website wondering "where did all the race baiting content go?" We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent's website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent's website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck's very rhetorical style. Beck's skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful. Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent's constitutional rights.
"No offense and I know Muslims, I like Muslims, I've been to mosques, I really don't think Islam is a religion of evil. I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying let's cut and run. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview because what I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy. But that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."And an analog from the website in question:
"Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations? We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 -- in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?"Randazzo says that the owner of the website "has merely presented Mr. Beck with a mirror. If Beck does not like what he sees, the Respondent is not to blame." Seems reasonable to me.
I’m not sure that “Glenn Beck is a hypocrite” threads will play too well around here. Not with me, anyway.
In this particular case, even if this report is true, Glenn Beck has a “brand” in his name and without due diligence in protecting it he can lose control over it. URLs with his actual name in it is the exact kind of thing he should at least attempt to control. Remember, he is a large company with lots of people and offices and not just one guy on a TV show. He has a fiduciary duty to those people to protect his image and intellectual property including trademarks, etc.
This is very different from his fact-based and appropriate speculation about public servants in the press. I hope you can see that distinction.
I’m noticing this as well — I’m especially irritated (to put it mildly) at the constant news portrayal of Polanski’s rape as “underage sex” or “non-consensual sexual relations” without the age of the CHILD given. If they provided the details each and every time they mentioned his situation, maybe there might be a more appropriate reaction to it and these others instances. Shameful.
This kind of comment is the very reason Glenn cannot just ignore the site, the jerk who is doing this says it is not true his own self! People cannot come into this with the idea that there is any kind of reality to the charge whatever, to do so allows the dirtbag to accomplish his goal.
But people *will* come into the site with whatever they have in their informed/uninformed minds. People don't consistently act in responsible ways as though they are testifying in court. They do what they feel like doing without "fact checking" it especially if they are just casually surfing the interesting websites.
Glenn needs to control the use of his name - in appropriate legal ways, *not* stifling free speech such as satire - because of this. I don't support killing the website but I do support Glenn having his name removed from the URL if he can.
And YES, I understand that this particular piece isn't true (I guess) but the larger point remains true and relevant IMO.
(I mean nothing hostile here, I'm just interested in discussing the hypothetical situation :0)
You need to read more carefully. My remarks addressed this particular writer, and pointed out how he caricatured himself with ridiculous claims that Beck asks people to prove a negative, when in fact, Beck had practically irrefutable evidence to back his claims in the form of video, audio, and published works of those he's accused. I clearly conclude that this writer made a fool of himself. I was not addressing that website, but the writer of this article.
More often than not, Beck uses actual video of people doing things to prove what he says. Funny how the left calls that “Smearing” them.
Beck's hypocrisy is the real issue here -- he knows he can't win under American law, so he goes running to the Internationales.
Serously: In what way does that make Beck a hypocrite? Ya gotta use the right tool for the right job. He may very well not have a case for libel but that is not what he is worried about. He is concerned AFAIK with protecting his name and trademark as it is being used in a URL and the people that control such things must be contacted.
I honestly think you point constitutes a non-sequitor.
To which I again say, it is not political satire, website, individual, mass e-mailings, regardless the media or number of people promoting. He doesn't make a fool of himself, he is making himself a defendant in a libel case, Def: anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
Glenn needs to control the use of his name - in appropriate legal ways, *not* stifling free speech such as satire - because of this. I don't support killing the website but I do support Glenn having his name removed from the URL if he can.
Free speech does not allow slander/libel. Glenn is entitled to control the use of his name and protect himself, his employees, etc., by use of the cease and desist order, if libel suit is necessary, so be it. Again, this does not fall under political speech whatsoever, first and foremost, Glenn Beck is not a politician, he is a public figure. Public figures are protected from libel the same as any private citizen.
Personally, and I can't answer for anybody else, I use the phrase "if it is true" in cases where I haven't had enough time/interest to do my own homework and am indicating a hypothetical situation. That's all it means. It also implies that "if it's NOT true" then I'd have a different reaction.
I have no quarrel with your position at all. I was just responding to a casual thread with a bit of a hypothetical argument. :0)
And if he actually did would you interpret that as a true reaction, or as sarcasm, or would you simply pick the angle which allows you the greatest flexibility in criticizing him?
You see, we can't read his mind. We, meaning neither you nor I. Therefore your accusation cannot be proven but only endlessly argued.
How boring that turns out to be for everyone.
He should hire the mafia to kill the guy!
Nothing says one can't do both of those things at the same time.
But your response is confusing, and has little to do what I have specifically said in this thread. Just state whatever opinion you want to state without attaching them to other's remarks.
Now, I don’t think that Glenn Beck in unpatriotic — actually, I think he is patriotic — I’m just asking the question of why a supposedly patriotic American would go to some foreign international-law body rather than an American court. Nothing wrong with asking questions, now is there...?
Does he? Or does he find the lawyer’s response amusing? And really, the response kind of is, although not so much the part he excerpted. The discussion of internet memes is actually kind of interesting too, and tracing how this particular one took hold.
Not if you're ok with getting answers you maybe didn't expect...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.