Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet The Courts The Media Your Rights Online

Glenn Beck Loses Dispute Over Parody Domain 1172

Posted by timothy
from the not-sure-if-strawman-is-quite-the-right-fallacy dept.
CuteSteveJobs writes "Glenn Beck fought the law and the law won. Parody website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com attacked Beck using the same straw man arguments Beck himself is famous for: '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 ... Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?' Beck didn't see the humour and tried to have the site shut down. He sued the creator on the grounds the site 'violated his name as a trademark.' But in a sudden outbreak of common sense, WIPO rejected Beck's complaint finding the site 'can be said to be making a political statement,' which is a 'legitimate non-commercial use' of Beck's name. But after winning, the owner voluntarily handed Beck the domain anyway. Still, it's comforting to know that satire — the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear — is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Glenn Beck Loses Dispute Over Parody Domain

Comments Filter:
  • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionar ... m ['o.c' in gap]> on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @11:41AM (#30046168) Journal

    Show me one time that Rachel Maddow has forced someone to deny bogus and patently ridiculous allegations over and over again. Who else but Beck has repeated the Obama birth certificate lunacy for so long? No one.

  • by IICV (652597) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @11:41AM (#30046178)

    It's a parody of what he does when he reports "news". He makes ridiculous statements, but phrases them such that when people call him on his bullshit he can say "I'm just asking questions". He'll then badger people about neither confirming or denying his "questions" - and they won't confirm or deny them because the questions are not even wrong.

    That's the point of this site - it's just asking a question, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Obviously he didn't, but why won't he confirm or deny it? That's interesting, isn't it?

    The worst part is that he actually has a TV show on Fox News. If you look on YouTube, you can find some of his spiels. They're pretty horrible, and yet somehow Americans still watch him. He sounds like that crazy homeless dude on the corner, except he's wearing a suit and he's in a television studio.

    (this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit. Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.)

  • by ZekoMal (1404259) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @11:46AM (#30046248)

    Basically, Glenn Beck is on Fox News as one of the many opinion guys they have. He throws out wild accusations but gets away with it by saying "I'm not saying it's true, but isn't it odd that I'm the only one asking these questions?" He's done so many crazy things (comparing Jesus to Hitler back when he was on CNN, for example). He's so batshit crazy that he makes Bill O'Reilly appear to be a sensible man. It's absolutely terrifying, moreso when you realize how many people religiously watch his show and consider it to be 100% fact.

    The controversy is just someone parodying him by making a wild accusation and then covering it with a batshit crazy question.

    ...He also cries loudly at random intervals on his show. I highly advise you try and find some Glenn Beck vids. http://vodpod.com/watch/1409182-colbert-mocks-crazy-eyes-beck-with-doom-bunker-segment [vodpod.com] There's one off of the Colbert Report that gives you an excellent example, in fact.

  • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionar ... m ['o.c' in gap]> on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @12:11PM (#30046598) Journal

    From the wiki article [wikipedia.org] on the race:

    New York's 23rd congressional district has historically been one of the most Republican districts in the United States. Most of the area in what is NY-23 has not been represented by a Democrat since the 19th century. A large portion—including the largest city, Watertown — has not been represented by a Democrat since the 1850s. In parts of the district, the last non-Republican Representative was a Whig.[7]

    BOOYA, bitches! You just lost a district that you owned for over 150 years! Sweet.

  • by BeansBaxter (918704) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @12:22PM (#30046806)
    Yes when I listen to someone who brings in different ideas and viewpoints I'm willing to consider them against my own philosophies and put them into perspective. I'm not closed minded but I know myself and don't fear the words and ideas of others.
    I've been listening to beck for 8 years now. Not religiously just when I get a chance. He is inflammatory on purpose. He does things to make his audience uncomfortable. It really is a brilliant mix and highly entertaining. He is a flawed human and happy to tell you so. He doesn't hold himself up as a model of perfection or anything else just an entertainer who likes to comment on politics with a "conservative" slant. He isn't a Republican booster despite others claiming such. But really you'd have to listen to understand any of that. I enjoy his show even when I disagree with his views.
    I've never drank coffee so I have no idea what affect it would have.
  • Re:Crossing the line (Score:3, Interesting)

    by h00manist (800926) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @12:27PM (#30046878) Journal

    this domain name was making the implication that someone committed truly heinous acts, not just par-for-the-course political chicanery.

    Regardless of who the target was, doesn't this cross a line that shouldn't be crossed?

    "par for the course" politics - yep. injecting hot fuel into racial hatred in politics, on mass media, on a national level, in the most powerful and armed nation, in the middle of wars full of religious and ethnic problems. very innocent, fair political gaming. Glenn Beck calls President Barack Obama a 'racist' [nydailynews.com]. And, nobody is accusing Glenn Beck of having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

  • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionar ... m ['o.c' in gap]> on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @12:28PM (#30046916) Journal

    Sure it is. Glenn Beck takes quotes completely out of context, for one thing. For another, the birth certificate question. It was answered. Te birth certificate was shown. The doctor who delivered Obama spoke up. The newspaper that printed his birth announcement showed their records. Yet Beck blathered on, asking Obama to prove something that had already been proven.

    The comparison is more than fair.

  • by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @12:32PM (#30046966)

    Its not just a US thing. Being too intellectual has been a focus or slander alot of places in the last 120 years. Vietnam during the war, Cambodia, Germany from before the First World War until the end of the Second, Pre and post Revolution Russia, post Revolution China.

    And in the US its not just been the Right, in the 60s the Left was against business and intellectuals like McNamara. Anti-intellectualism seems to have started in the US in the 17th century and in Europe with Cato the Elder.

    Go back farther and there have been anti-intellectual movements into the Classical period.

  • by AlamedaStone (114462) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @12:36PM (#30047036)

    Limbaugh and Beck are both "entertainment", obviously.

    Of the "news" designated portions of Fox News, I challenge you to link a single clip of one minute or more that can reasonably be called either fair or balanced. Full disclosure: I don't believe it is possible.

    Also, I don't have any idea what numbers you are referring to. Saying "the numbers prove you wrong" with no reference to what numbers is as absurdist as saying "the letters display pink daisies after the end!" It has no meaning.

  • Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ArcherB (796902) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @12:37PM (#30047046) Journal

    Refuted. [politifact.com]

    From your link, final paragraph:

    But Beck has repeatedly said Jones is a communist. Present tense. Although we could not find a comment in which Jones explicitly said why he is no longer one, we found ample evidence that he now believes capitalism is the best force for the social change he is seeking. So there's truth to Beck's claim in that Jones was a communist, but it's apparent he isn't any longer, as Beck suggests. So we find the claim Barely True.

    So, they have video of Van Jones saying he IS a communist, but can't find anything with him saying he is NOT. However, he has said some things that don't sound like a communist, so we don't think he is. Therefor, Beck is liar!

    Did I summarize it right?

  • by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @12:45PM (#30047184)

    No, he is an entertainer, there is a bigger market pandering to the right on Fox than there is pandering to the left on CNN/MSNBC/etc because the market is saturated with left leaning commentators and entertainers.

    Now he is an adherent to Mormonism through conversion after a rough patch, so yea, as many newly converted are, he is extra hyper about his religion and whatever world view he has now.

    I'm a moderate Conservative and personally he and Limbaugh disgust me.

  • Re:Why bother? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nomadic (141991) <.nomadicworld. .at. .gmail.com.> on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @12:47PM (#30047240) Homepage
    You don't know what "communist" means, do you? You do realize "believ[ing] that the private sector is the only organization capable of actually solving the problems he believes faces the country" is very strong evidence that he's not a communist, don't you?
  • by operagost (62405) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @12:48PM (#30047252) Homepage Journal
    Here you go. [blogspot.com] The total lack of criticism for Obama at MSNBC is disturbing. I'm sure now you'll make the argument that McCain is a baby-eater and he deserved more negative coverage.

    Unfortunately, it seems like most people get their opinions from SNL skits and Jon Stewart.

  • Re:Exactly (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dclydew (14163) <dclydew@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @01:29PM (#30048024)

    Well, it really depends on what one considers a news organization. I've tried to watch Fox... I really have (and no, I'm not a liberal). However, Fox News is news in the way Jon Stewart is... they use a "news format" but they have an obvious agenda. Obvious enough that I would call them an editorial organization that occasionally reports on the news.

    Note too, that the first amendment doesn't mean "The President has to talk to me because I'm on television". If Obama called for Fox to be taken off the air... then I'd agree that he's obviously not respecting the First Amendment. However, he has only stated that they have an agenda, that they're the mouthpiece of a political group and that he's not wasting his time with them.

    All of that seems true.

    The first amendment guarantees our right to say what we want. Fox says what they want to say. It does not however, guarantee that anyone is going to respect what you say. I have yet to hear much of anything from Fox News that I respected.

  • by nschubach (922175) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @01:33PM (#30048102) Journal

    There are people on both sides that would like that very much. This includes people who were fighting for a more logical approach to health care by allowing the states to come up with their own systems instead of voting in one giant massive system that's untested. I happen to be one of these people... though I tend to fall more in the Libertarian side of the square as opposed to left or right (blue or red.) IMHO, the Federal government was setup as a check to the state governments where the people voted in representatives that could override decisions made by the states in intent. In practice, and thanks to the fade of States rights, it's been lost.

    Or are you one of those people that think only Democrats can think of notable solutions and all other ideas will never work? That somehow "the red states" will fall and the "progressive blue wonders" will reach the utopia of mankind through social programs and abolishment of individual success?

  • Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @01:38PM (#30048198)

    If I had mod points, I would have modded you as insightful.

    You are absolutely correct that political polarization is what hurting this country (USA).

    I'll tell you how bad it has gotten. I listen to "All Things Considered", "Morning Edition", and "Marketplace" on my local NPR station. I think overall these are well balanced news shows especially when compared to CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. My self-proclaimed conservative coworker harasses me about my habit of listening to state sponsored radio. WTF?

    Now I consider myself a southern moderate conservative and yet have been accused of being a californian "bleeding heart" liberal because I don't agree with all the talking points that these "Conservative" shows spew out.

    Here is my problem with their logic:

    How can you be against a "totalitarian" government and support the suppression of the constitution in the name of national security?

    How can you not trust the government, and yet insist it intrude into the private lives of it's citizens (eg. Abortion, Gay Marriage, Government Wire Taps)?

    When it comes to health care, why is it that the majority of the people that I see who are against "socialized" medicine are of the age that receives Social Security and Medicare? I know this is a anecdotal observation on my part, but the GOP right-wing base is comprised of people who are old enough to qualify for both.

    It makes no sense... Well... okay I can crudely describe the modern definition of "conservative" and "liberal" as the following:

    Conservative - The portion that is wealthy likes to stay wealthy. The portion that is not wealthy, would like to be left alone and not pay any more taxes. They tend to drive up the deficit since they want the government to continue to spend money while not raising taxes. They believe they have more common sense than everybody else. They believe that if they imitate the wealthy that they may themselves become wealthy or at least their children will have a shot of being wealthy. They trust corporations, since corporations are a key component of the free market economy, and believe that any benefits that the corporations receive from the government may trickle down to their employees and whoever the employee does commerce. They pretend to be for individual rights as long as it is aligned with their beliefs. The powerful conservative trust the government to benefit corporations through the use of earmarks (pork spending) in the name of privatization (small government).

    Liberal - The portion that is wealthy would like to pretend that they are like average folk and care about the little guy. The portion that are not wealthy consider themselves activists in social causes. As a group, they are for increase taxes in order to support more spending. The unwealthy portion believe the wealthy should pay more taxes, while the wealthy portion don't plan on paying them anyway. They believe that they are smarter than everybody else. They tend to be alarmist when it comes to the environment or social issues. They hate corporations despite any benefits that they may have received from them. They pretend to be for individual rights as long as it is aligned with their beliefs. They trust the government to be a benevolent entity that should take care of its citizens to a fault, while at the same time believe that the government is out to get them.

    Thanks to polarization we can't compromise and have what I consider a more pragmatist government consisting of elements from both views which could be:

    Moderate - Both wealthy and unwealthy members consider themselves pragmatists. They consider themselves wise and try to be open to new ideas and listen to both "conservative" and "liberal" ideas. They are for individual rights and realize that while these rights are open to abuse it is still worth protecting. They believe in a free market tempered with government regulation. They understand that free market capitalism is the engine for society to advance, yet the government

  • by ZekoMal (1404259) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @01:46PM (#30048336)

    No, the White House was quoted as saying that Fox News produces biased news. That being said, Stewart also caught them with their hand in their pants when they quoted "some sources" on their official news hours when the sources were their non-news shows!

    Is Fox News news? No. Am I in the White House? No. Was Fox News bashing Bush for favoring conservative viewpoints? No. Is Fox News a bunch of hypocritical winded douchebags shouting at a camera? Yes. Deal with it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @01:52PM (#30048440)

    So did you watch Glenn Beck before Obama was elected, or just when he started to broadcast news that you agreed with?

    Typically I've found that people that love Fox News, O'Reilly, Hannity or Glenn Beck are big fans but only after the 2008 election campaigns started and they were looking for someone to smear shit all over the competition.

    Don't watch a news program just because it reveals "hat's happening behind closed doors.", watch it because it's actually fair and balanced.
    If that means you don't watch the BBC, MSNBC or Air America so be it, but don't Beck up as a shining example of investigative journalism when really he's just a sensationalist spreading the latest scare tactics to the mindless masses.

  • by Boomerang Fish (205215) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @02:04PM (#30048676) Homepage

    Not irrelevant if, (and I stress this is a hypothetical because we will never know until/unless someone tries it) had the cited personage actually been Michelle Obama, would the courts have rendered the decision the same way, and would the public opinion be similar (though likely with political affiliation swapped) or outraged?

    Admittedly I'm cynical, but having watched how certain media outlets handle certain people with kid gloves because they are black or because they are republican or because they are democrat or because they are christian or because they are whatever... (and this happens on both sides of the aisle, so don't get your panties in a bunch because I'm maligning your "objective" news source -- they all do this)...

    I honestly don't think the courts would have backed this, had it been MO, but I admit that's a feeling of mine, not something I'm claiming as a "fact". And I think, had the judges ruled the same way, some of the justices would see their death threat numbers go up...

    We as a nation are NOT objective and fair, and in all honesty, we don't even really try to be...

    --
    Huh?

  • by Abcd1234 (188840) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @02:21PM (#30048932) Homepage

    ROFL, utter brilliance! Kudos, my friend. Kudos.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @02:34PM (#30049174)

    Alternate shortened version: We're ruled by sociopaths and worship narcissists. Enjoy your stay on this planet.

  • by internic (453511) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @03:50PM (#30050348)

    Game. Set. Match.

Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket. -- George Orwell

Working...