Glenn Beck Loses Dispute Over Parody Domain 1172
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."
DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com (Score:5, Funny)
DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com
icing on the cake: (Score:4, Insightful)
tell beck why the results of his arrogance is now something he has in common with barbra streisand. he'll love the comparison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because this is Glenn Beck, and there is almost a syndrome about the Beck/Limbaugh/Fox hatred going on right, doesn't take away from the vile level to which some people stoop to personally destroy someone.
If this was: www.didmichelleobamagangbangacollegefootballteamandgetpregnant.org people would be furious with the decision that it was legal.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I do look for a certain level of intellectual honest on /. After all, this isn't the Huffington Post.
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of satire has a rather long history, and has long been protected (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell [wikipedia.org] ).
Beck is an infantile baby. Don't want this sort of attention, get a job as an accountant or burger slinger. Otherwise, shut up and take it.
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'd also add: Don't be such a pussy - anything you dish out you should fully be able to take. I'd love to hear an explanation on why it's fair when you do it and unfair when it's done to you.
And on top of that: If you love 'Murica as much as you say you do, then you should at least learn how she works. We're actually pretty proud of the First Amendment. Too bad you're not.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason I, personally, have a problem with Beck is exactly what is portrayed by this website.
He never SAYS that "The Government is doing *Insert Evil Act Here*." He just implies it. A lot. With no facts at all. Then he cries, and claims he's scared, all attempting to make people think he cares about them.
Then he compares some government program to what Hitler would do. Then maybe he talks about how the government COULD, not that they are, but so easily COULD put something in the swine flu vaccine.
It's scare politics. It's all it really is. Sure, he throws out the occasional "well, I'm speaking of the Republicans, too, don't want to make this political," but by far it's obvious where his loyalties lie. So obvious even SNL mocks him for it. Which is saying something.
And yes, Olbermann can be bad. But that's one guy on one channel. And he does tend to have some factual basis for his opinions. And I don't see his stuff leaking into the rest of the MSNBC newscasting.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Funny)
At least Rush isn't an alleged rapist/murderer.
If Glen would only call and confirm or deny the charges, these nasty rumors would go away. It breaks my heart that he refuses to.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody's been trying to "muscle" Fox out of the networks. Is the White House trying to shut them down? Send the army into the studio?
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't strike me as that odd... I have never seen a "major news organization" that has been as blatantly partisan and as blatantly biased as Fox News.
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
George W Bush, MSNBC.
Hardly the first time.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
but you do have to admit that this is pretty much the first time a president or administration or party in power has overtly dismissed an entire news network, and actually spoken ill specifically of them.
No, I don't have to admit that - the Bush administration did the same thing with CNN, for simple reporting of the news.
They problem with Fox is that they are organizing political rallies, which makes them not a news organization, by definition - it makes them a political organization.
as bad as it got for Nixon, or Clinton, they didn't single out a news network that was reporting badly about them, verbally attack them, and cut off access from them like the current administration has to Fox.
The difference is that Fox is a political organization, not a news one. If they want to be treated like a news network, they should cease organizing political protests. They're free to give their opinion, but the second they start paying to host and organize political movements, they cease being an impartial observer.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
"No, but you do have to admit that this is pretty much the first time a president or administration or party in power has overtly dismissed an entire news network, and actually spoken ill specifically of them"
Nope. In the 2004 election the Bush campaign faxed out dossiers attacking specific reporters and, even, whole news organizations. Bush was also the President who apologetically called a reporter a "major league asshole" on national TV.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
"You honestly don't see those as being about as partisan towards the left side of things"
I see ALL of the "mainstream" media as a giant propaganda machine designed to perpetuate the status quo and serve wealthy special interests. Both of the "major" political parties are really on the same "side", except on a few divisive and emotional (but largely unimportant) issues. The mission of the MSM is to create and maintain the illusion of genuine political opposition. Their primary tool for doing this is to constrain the political dialogue in this country to a narrow spectrum of "acceptable" viewpoints, and then twist every issue into a narrow minded black and white paradigm where there are "two sides". Real investigative journalism no longer exists in the confines of the mainstream press.
We would all do well to completely ignore the MSM propaganda. Long live the bloggers and the independent media.
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:4, Insightful)
Or set up a flag@whitehouse.gov email that your constituents can use to report anyone speaking ill of you or your policies for "further education"...
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Funny)
Beck is an infantile baby.
That's the best kind! Senile babies are an entirely different beast...
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
Being entitled to being enraged is obviously not a legal question but a moral one. Did Glenn Beck have a moral entitlement to being enraged? I don't think so, given his history. That's the point of that domain, after all.
The point (Score:4, Insightful)
If you look at the language of the site, they're specifically not accusing him of rape (odd, that you should pick that over murder, but oh well).
The point is that he uses exactly the same kind of language to accuse people of all sorts of things -- f.ex. accusing a Muslim congrescritter of being a terrorist by using absurdly leading language such as "Now, *I'm* not saying that you're a terrorist, but some people might think .... Why don't you deny the rumour that you are a terrorist?"
Glenn Beck is a fucking pussy who can't handle being confronted with his own tactics and he no moral high ground in this case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are right that Beck would have been wiser to ignore the website, and respect their right of free speech.
Even dickheads like the KKK have that right to smear other people.
As for Beck's show, I think it's worth watching. I would not have known that Mr. Jones wants to take my money and give it to Indians ("give them the wealth") or that he believes whites are poisoning blacks ("dumping their pollution in black neighborhoods") or tat he used to be not just Obama's right hand man, but also a communist. --
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:4, Informative)
He brought this to the WIPO, which is intended to resolve intellectual property rights, not defamation torts. A proper use of the system would have been to file a defamation action in a US court of general jurisdiction.
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny really - Beck is all for the Constitution, except when it's inconvenient for him. Then he appeals to those same transnational bodies he rails against on his show to get around it.
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Funny)
How can you like a man who raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you bother? You are right but why make the effort?
I swear that the people on Slashdot have pushed the art of bias to new extremes.
To answer your question. No I am not furious that the decision was legal. And no I wouldn't be upset if the other URL was found legal.
I an and would be furious that both exists and I am a little ticked that Slashdot puts it on the front page and NOT under politics which I have set to not show up on my front page of Slashdot.
Yes it is good that it is legal it is bad that idiots create such crap and that other sites then give them free PR.
BTW if you hate Glen Beck you do know this will only help him with his faithful don't you?
Just so everybody can see the results of this action and understand just how STUPID it is I will explain it to you.
Some Beck hater posts this website.
People that HATE Beck will think it is funny.
People that Love Beck will hate those that think it is funny,
Beck takes them to court and doesn't get the site taken down.
The people that HATE Beck still think it is funny.
The people that LOVE Beck will see it as proof that the courts are biased and hate them. They will become more politically active and work harder for consertives to get elected.
The result is this is preaching to the base and will do nothing but amuse one base and rally the other.
End result more polarization which is exactly what WE DON"T NEED.
For people like me that don't love or hate Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, President Obama, or NPR.
We get anoyed that we have to see this stupidity.
Of course why did I bother to make this effort since it will be unread or I will be modded down as a troll.
PS. I bet Health Care will not pass. Both parties are expert at the art of active inactivity.
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
Refuted. [politifact.com]
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Informative)
No. You've obviously read the first paragraph, and the last paragraph, but there's good stuff in the middle:
And even better:
In context, yes, Beck is a liar for saying the guy's a communist.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have never seen anyone refute what Glenn Beck is actually saying.
That's the his entire M.O., is it not? First, Beck accuses you of beating your wife (or some similar calumny). Then he tries to get you to deny it. If you rise to the bait and do deny it, he now has video of you denying it, and can use that video to imply that whether you beat your wife or not is a legitimate question. If you refuse to dignify him with a response, he can go ahead and claim that because you refused to deny it, there must be something to the accusation. Either way, he wins.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200611150004 [mediamatters.org]
Go on, justify it.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Glenn Beck has said: It's just that almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist."
Fact, the majority of american scientists -- over 90%, believe in Global warming. These are not socialist. Most are Democrats, but no, you don't get the right to tell other people what they believe. Deomcrats are liberals not socialists. We have the right to decide our own political affilialtion, you can't tell me I'm a socialist, anymore than I can tell you that you are a member of the NeoNazi party.
More importantly, not all scientists are Democrats. Yes, 55% say they are Democrats, but 6% say they are Republicans. (2% say they are independent). The independent ones also believe in Global warming.
(P.S. Republicans should be ashamed that so few scientists are Republicans. Yeah, I know the hole 'ivory tower' explanation, but frankly that might be enough to explain 20% or even 15%, but 6% indicates a serious problem).
The main problem with Glenn Beck is not the content, but the delivery.
That is I respect a man that says "I believe Obama is not an American Citizen" a lot more than I respect an asswipe that says "Isn't it interesting that Obama has not publicly denied being a Kenyan." The first man is simple ignorant, the second knows he is wrong, but wants to try an attack his opponent using dirty tricks based on a lie he refuses to stand up and state. The first man is a brave idiot, the second one is an intelligent coward trying to hide. I am proud to call the first a friend, but I would throw the second out of my house.
Glenn Beck is a shmuck, not because of what he believes, but of how he presents it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:its fair turn around (Score:4, Insightful)
Two wrongs don't make a right. Be the better person and refrain from it.
Using the same tactics makes you an asshat just like the other guy.
Re:its fair turn around (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
beck/ limbaugh/ fox traffic in lies, propaganda and demagoguery.
Funny. The
numbers
show just the opposite. You can bitch and moan all you want, but numbers don't lie. So if the numbers don't lie and you are saying the opposite... what does that say about you?
Do you have something against a news network that actually gives those that you disagree with a fair shake?
(Granted, commentators like Hannity are NOT news. But as far as the actual NEWS goes, Fox NEWS was by fair the most "fair and balanced" of any network, at least in regards to the last election. Like I said, number
Re:its fair turn around (Score:5, Insightful)
But the organization as a whole works as one machine. What Fox NEWS is very good at is reporting the rumors started by the Fox "commentators* - "...some people say..." - and those *commentators* are very good at talking about that *news* - "...it's been reported...". Rinse and repeat.
There should be no misconception that the entire Fox News organization is a propaganda machine for Rupert Murdoch and the Republican party. They are "fair and balanced" only up to the point that it conflicts with these two entities. To paint a broad stroke, anyone who cannot see that is deluded.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Funny)
there are other people who are Glenn Beck fans and not drooling retards.
[Citation needed]
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Funny)
I Googled it, there are't any.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=glenn+beck+fans+who+are+%22not+drooling+retards%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= [google.com]
there are other people who are Glenn Beck fans and not drooling retards.
[Citation needed]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure that the drooling retards who call themselves Glenn Beck fans are outraged about this decision.
I want one of those broad brushes.
Where did you get yours? Ace? HomeDepot?
I can only hope that "fans" of Glenn Beck are sort of like pro wrestling "fans" -- They enjoy the performance, knowing deep down that it's not authentic.
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
No offense, and I know Glenn Beck fans. I like Glenn Beck fans. I've watched Fox. I really don't believe that conservatism is the politics of stupid. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked.
With that being said, you are a Glenn Beck fan. You are saying, "That's a broad brush" And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not a drooling idiot
And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being a drooling idiot, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, hey, HEY... Not fair - to subhuman, poo-flinging primates. My stuffed Gorilla is very nice, though I believe he would target his poo at Glenn - and the Fox News "commentators" in general - but that's his First Amendment right...
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Informative)
I have several (and I'm 46). My wife and I couldn't have children and she had pet allergies, so we got stuffed animals. They loved to give her hugs and kisses and play in her underwear drawer. She died of a brain tumor in January 2006 (after 20 years together). I cherish my memories of us and our stuffed animals.
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Interesting)
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:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Informative)
Blue states support the red welfare states.
Red states do pull ahead of the blue states in teen pregnancy rates, though, so you have that going for you. [mediagirl.org]
detroit (falling apart more every day)
Oh, cherry-picking examples, are we? Detroit is failing because when an entire industry disappears seattle (crime skyrocketing)
Still a lot safer than that reddest of cities, Dallas, in that reddest of states, Texas.
new york (do i even need to say anything here)
I think you do; I live in NYC and it's a pretty good place to live, even with the world economy like it is.
With out fail, blue leadership has been killing all our major cities.
That is the most profoundly ignorant statement I've read today. Have you ever been to a major city? Or do you just listen to what Glenn Beck tells you from the safety of your little suburb?
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Funny)
I like beck. Perhaps you are too educated for your own good.
That's right citizen. Ignorance is strength.
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there such a thing as "too" educated? I don't see how this is possible.
But then again I find people slandering other people over being "intellectuals" to be rather silly. i'd rather be an intellectual than its opposite, ignorant. There also is a huge amount of irony in this, the people who are slandering other people for being "educated" are doing so for almost wholly political reasons. The politicians on the left are "intellectuals", but they ignore the fact that the "home grown" politicians are the right have roughly the same level of education.
G.W. Bush, for example, was a Yale grad, with roughly the same level of education as the evil intellectial Clinton (either of them). Obama actually has LESS time in the crusty halls of Ivy League academe as G.W. Bush.
I never see how being an ignorant yokel could be a point of pride. Its like America aspires to be back in highschool, where picking on nerds, just because they like books more than football, was a great passtime.
Ignorance and stupidity is not a positive character trait.
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're confusing causation and correlation. Being educated has nothing to do with being a Cosmic Schmuck.
The search for certitude - like the pretense of moral righteousness - appears to me as a medieval habit that should have vanished long ago. None of us knows enough to be certain about anything, usually, and none of us are nearly as 'moral' as we feel obliged to pretend we are in order to be acceptable to 'Decent' Society.
If we are not totally stupid and blindly selfish on all possible occasions, we are about as bright and ethical as anyone in history has ever been. The greatest batters in the history of baseball all had batting averages well below 0.500, which means they missed more than half the time they swung. Medieval morality and theology have left us with the hypocritical habit of pretending batting averages close to 0.999 in both knowledge and ethics. (The Absolutists go around talking and acting as if their averages were actually 1.000 or sheer perfection.) On average, I think I score under Babe Ruth and I suspect you do, too.
There thus appears to be a great deal of conceit and self - deception in the habitual poses of intellectual certitude and ethical perfection among the educated classes. It would appear more in keeping with honesty, I think, to recognize, as analogous to Murphy's Law, the unscientific but useful generalization I call the Cosmic Schmuck Principle.
The Cosmic Schmuck Principle holds that if you don't wake up, once a month at least, and realize that you have been acting like a Cosmic Schmuck again then you will probably go on acting like a cosmic schmuck forever; but if you do, occasionally, recognize your Cosmic Schmuckiness, then you might begin to become a little less Schmucky that the general human average at this primitive stage of terrestrial evolution.
Page 22 - 23
Natural Law
or Don't Put A Rubber On Your Willy PDF
by Robert Anton Wilson
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we could trust politicians to be honest and honorable, I'd completely agree with the sentiment.
Unfortunately, they cater to industry interests (in exchange for kickbacks and whatnot) over just about anything else. So electing an elite just means that they'll be better at serving their own interests.
Of course, someone "just like me" is probably an elite who's good at appearing like the common man. I don't think that Mr. Smith can get to Washington these days, much less hold the highest, most powerful po
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're upset by Healthcare, but you weren't worried when the government got permission to do wiretaps without a FISA order?
You're angered by bank bailouts, but not by citizens being held without trial, or US entities breaching treaties and conventions that we signed as a nation (like the Convention Against Torture)?
You are more concerned about TAXES then protesters being put in 'Free Speech Zones" that amounted to little more than cages?
Jefferson would make his hand strong and pimp slap you for invoking his name with that sort of logic.
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was a public figure, yes. It's part of the price of fame, and of free speech. You like free speech, right?
I find it particularly appropriate that this happened to Glen Beck, who uses the same tactics of making people refute completely bogus accusations.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
glenn beck is a smear merchant (Score:5, Insightful)
his goal is to get attention, whether positive or negative. in fact, getting negative attention from his ideological opponents is probably more dear to him than getting positive attention from his admirers
you have to understand the man and the nature of his business: he's a professional troll. his goal is to create and generate emotional responses, whether positive or negative, its all the same to him. this is his business, and he's good at it. proof being, sites that mock and satire him: its proof of success
in fact, i'd bet he actually doesn't mind the site, it doesn't really bother him personally, but he shrewdly calculated that feigning outrage as a reaction would win him more response. i mean look at this giant shitstorm generated on slashdot over this ego-pumping pointlessness. we're all talking about glenn beck. beck, beck, beck, blah blah blah: he wins, he has our attention, he's the subject of our speech and occupies our thought. that's his goal
the man is a professional demagogue. this is what he does, and he does it well: he generates heat, pointless emotion, mindless easy outrage in service of a cause. of course, its all lies and smears, but what does that matter? truth is not the issue, influence is. and in politics the truth means something, but influence means even more
Has the real question been answered? (Score:5, Funny)
Has Glenn Beck denied having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
If not, why not?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Has Glenn Beck denied having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
If not, why not?
I'm not saying he did or anything, and I think he didn't, but I think that many of the readers will wonder why he has yet to deny these rumors.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Has the real question been answered? (Score:4, Insightful)
Glenn Beck almost certainly did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990. However, with people raising the issue, he should step forward and deny that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I mean, the man has a TV show, a very public forum to state that he didn't raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. He could open tomorrow by saying that he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990.
Instead he's now suing people who say he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990! I don't think this allegation is true for a second, but seriously, people, that doesn't look good.
In case you honestly don't get the joke, this is one of the many ways that Glenn Beck operates. He will explicitly state rumors, over and over, to assert he doesn't believe in them, but the Democrat involved, usually Obama, should deny them. So someone figured out, hey, he should have a rumor of his own to deny.
Re:Has the real question been answered? (Score:5, Informative)
As a Canadian, I don't really get the reference, either. But as near as I can tell, from reading the posts on this thread, he's one of those ultra-conservative blowhards who makes his living by indirectly accusing people of committing outrageous acts. He's the kind of person who'd go on the radio saying something like "I'm not saying Tony Blair is a sheep-shagger, but why hasn't he denied calling the vet to his home under 'suspicious' circumstances last Tuesday at 3am?" As a rational thinker, you know that he's just spewing BS, but you're forgetting that Beck's audience is largely American. They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea. ^.~
It reminds me of McCarthyism... Joe McCarthy used to ask people pointed questions that included veiled accusations phrased as statement of fact. "Tell me, Inda, Why do you hate America?". Not "do you hate America"... in the phrasing of the question it's assumed that you hate America, and he's not asking you for a yes/no, he's asking for an explanation of why.
Ah, satire (Score:5, Funny)
I think this internet meme was the best satire of Glenn Beck, until Jon Stewart joined in the fun [thedailyshow.com].
Precident-setting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure's name, while gracefully ending the joke when it's done what it's supposed to. Well done.
I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not saying it is or isn't taken, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Is didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com taken?
I'm not saying it is or isn't taken, I'm just saying that a lot of Americans are interested in this question, and somebody needs to ask it.
Oh, I know, some of you are saying "Hey, why not just use nslookup?" Did you know that's part of the "BIND" -- now there's a scary name if there ever was one -- package from Berkeley? Have you ever thought about what the "N" and the "S" stand for? Did you that there's a magazine called "New Socialist" -- and they're now online?
Don't you think this is all pretty interesting?
Oh, and whether or not didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1991.com is taken .... gb1990.com [gb1990.com] is. In fact, they're carrying -- and I know this is a little spooky -- the same content that was at didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com. Now that's a pretty interesting fact right there, isn't it? I'm not saying what's there is or isn't "true", but I hope Mr. Beck comes clean about these charges, because if he's innocent, we need him without this cloud over his head.
For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck [wikipedia.org]
And the allegations of rape and murder seem to be the internet equivalent of small-town gossip, which might have a seed of truth or might be an elaborate attempt by his political opponents to a smear campaign.
Any Americans care to extend the info on this controversy for all us non-Americans?
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Informative)
Beck is famous for attacking politicians (especially Obama) by "asking questions". So some internet smart asses used his own style against him. Turns out he doesn't like it when the shoe's on the other foot.
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck [wikipedia.org]
And the allegations of rape and murder seem to be the internet equivalent of small-town gossip, which might have a seed of truth or might be an elaborate attempt by his political opponents to a smear campaign.
Any Americans care to extend the info on this controversy for all us non-Americans?
Glen Beck is a radio talkshow host and a TV showhost on FOX News. He is very conservative and has been in the news for making some... missteps in his commentary that have made him come off as not extremely intelligent. The allegations are a parody of his style of reporting, which follows a similar logic(Example: the president hasn't denied that he was born out of the us, so if it isn't true why hasn't he?). So the point isn't to say if he actually did rape or murder anyone, but to draw attention to the flaw in his logic. Glen Beck just made it worse by drawing so much attention to the website and the entire story.
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Insightful)
"He is very conservative"
I'm a liberal but I think it's an insult to conservatives to call him that (seriously, there are intellectual, reasonable conservatives). He's just crazy. The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll. I don't think he really has a position. He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Informative)
Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't. So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.
Re:Not entirely true (Score:5, Informative)
The document presented is prima facia evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is what the Hawaii state seal on the document and the signature of the state official on the document attest to. The republican governor of Hawaii and the Hawaii state officials responsible for maintaining those records have both publicly confirmed that they have reviewed the documents that are in state custody and those documents also prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The noise from the birthers is just denial.
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Insightful)
Much like the Rush Limbaugh slavery quote (Score:3, Insightful)
I really get tired of hearing that all the hate comes from the right when the left is just as guilty of it, if not more so in recent times. The Rush debacle was probably the lowest point some major media outlets reached since Dan Rather and CBS did in 2004.
Glen Beck makes himself a target and I bet he comes away richer for it. However, try this same type of website against someone who is black, gay, or Muslim, and see how long it lasts; if Beck were either of the tree I bet it would have been taking down
Defensive? (Score:5, Funny)
*Well, just this one.
Re:Defensive? (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you for that amazing show canajin56. On TV ToughGuys with TubeSteak, we're going to look into the shocking allegations that Glenn Beck routinely BBQs and eats babies, saying minorities taste the best. I have with me here in the studio Mbuutu, a cannibal from Africa who has BBQed and eaten minority babies, to discuss with us why colored babies taste better than white ones.
-While I think that is funny on its own merits, the deeper joke is that I'm parodying Fox News' habit of having one showhost make an allegation, and later, having other showhosts "report" on the allegations. The day after, this leads to newspaper articles which are then quickly quoted by Fox News hosts as proof that there are merits to the allegations even though the articles are merely discussing what was said on TV the day before. I read a great article on the practice, but I can't find it.
"Beck didn't see the humour" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there is none. Quit confounding parody and satire with humour. Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).
Re:"Beck didn't see the humour" (Score:5, Funny)
All Beck had to do to make this go away was prove he didn't kill and rape or rape then kill a girl in 1990, how hard is this to do? Just show us the proof. Show the death certificate that says you didn't rape her
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Beck never does that....oh wait.
This was a parody of the Glenn Beck Style (Score:5, Insightful)
Glenn makes personal attacks of this very nature, so it is entirely appropriate that this was done to Beck. After all, if he didn't rape and murder a young girl, why doesn't he just prove it? Should be as easy as proving you were born in this country.
Re:This is an attack on the teabaggers (Score:5, Informative)
The one where you got a democrat elected instead of a moderate republican? Or is my satire detector off?
Re:This is an attack on the teabaggers (Score:4, Funny)
Actually at the end of the day NY-23 was actually a strategic win for the Republicans, despite what is perceived as a tactical loss.
Don't forget that because an actual Democrat (in name and in beliefs) now has that seat, he will be far easier to beat by an actual conservative in 2010 than a 'Republican' (in name but not in beliefs) such as Scozzafava would have been.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow! You got a virtual unknown conservative candidate within 4% of winning in a district that has elected Republicans since the 1880s!
And, honestly, you would have probably succeeded this time if the voters were not still entirely rejecting the right and everything you stand for. So there's that comfort.
Maybe next year, you'll actually manage to replace a Republican or two from, say, Utah! Assuming they're still electing Republicans over there.
You're exactly what the Republicans need, people kicking them
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:handing back the domain FAIL (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sick of the Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine most of the comments I just read were by those who have never even seen or listened to Beck's show.Calling the accusation of fictional rape of a young girl parody is ridiculous.
I have listened to Beck and I also consider his approach to calling anything or anyone who proposes a government run this or that as communist and socialist (and the "fact" that the left has a "hidden" agenda to turn the US into a communist state) is also ridiculous and extremely distasteful
Re:Sick of the Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
That's entirely unreasonable. Socialism != Government-run. You don't think the U.S. military is socialist do you? Policemen and Firefighters aren't socialist are they?
The real problem is that too many Americans have no idea what Socialism is. The term has been shrewdly twisted by people who profit from Laissez-faire policies to effectively mean any and every service the government provides. But that is not socialism. The "means of production" is not defined as the ability to produce any product or any service like you seem to think.
It could just be that people are ignorant in general, and because they resent and distrust intellectuals, they end up getting their history lessons from buffoons like Glen Beck. The result is that a disturbing number of people end up truly believing that Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism are all the same. How can America hope to remain an innovative, dominant competitor in a global economy with such widespread ignorance?
-Grym
Re:Sick of the Double Standard (Score:4, Funny)
Firefighters: Stop the Red Truck Socialist menace now!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You, my dear sir or madam, missed the point entirely, of course he didn't rape and kill anyone, it would certainly hit his ratings so he wouldn't do that, what the domain "parodied" was the style favored by Mr. Glenn "I do more research ..." Beck: make a statement about a target,
Good Example, But Not Necessarily How You Meant... (Score:5, Insightful)
"You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, Okay? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definitions define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path."
I watched the video of her delivering the speech, and it's perfectly plausible that her explanation is true. "...two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Theresa" has all the hallmarks of a poorly delivered joke. She may, in fact, have heard that quote and backstory from Lee Atwater as she claimed.
So Beck, in his usual form, runs right out and connects her to all of Mao's atrocities, instead of to the quote she offered. He implies, AS YOU DO HERE, that she's a student of his work, and that she agrees with all of his choices. In no way can that be supported from anything else she's said, and it certainly can't be concluded on the basis of even this one isolated quote.
Beck does not back up most of his stuff. He implies. He solicits emotional response instead of enlightenment. He draws casual lines and tosses them aay without backing them up. He hammers his points, and you suck it up like his greedy little lap dog.
Wait a second... he's Michael Moore! Should have seen it before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I stopped reading at "democrat party".
Wotta loon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's the thing; it was a libel suit, brought before a domain name tribunal. Completely improper and inappropriate. And it was brought there because they knew they'd have no chance in an actual court, tryin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.