In early September Beck decided to attack free speech by filing a complaint against the website glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com.

This blatant assault on free speech would have been more likely to fail in the U.S., so Beck filed his complaint as a domain name dispute to WIPO, which is a U.N. agency.

If Glenn Beck had won the dispute, it is likely to have had a chilling effect on free speech and the Internet. Political protest sites incorporating another’s traded upon name would have had a precedent against them, and may have been attacked and silenced.

The American Civil Liberties Union may have felt more likely to win a complaint against Glenn Beck supporters like the far right site Stop the ACLU, Barack Obama would of had a stronger case against barackobamasucks.com and the Republican party may have filed suit to take the domain name away from freerepublic.com .

Essentially, Beck was asking the United Nations to help him rob the First Amendment rights from an American citizen, and thankfully the same agency that Beck decrees as being an impediment to freedom acted as a protector of those rights.

Glenn Beck asked the U.N. to help him restrict and remove an Americans Constitutional right to free speech. The U.N. refused to break the law.

The Administrative Panel decided in favor of the respondent, Isaac Eiland-Hall, noting:

Respondent has conceded that it knows the statement embodied in the disputed domain name is false. In the Hustler Magazine case referred to by Respondent, a jury determined that the reader of a magazine advertisement could not have reasonably concluded that it described an actual series of events (i.e., known to be
false), highly unflattering to the subject though they may have been. In the
present context, this Panel considers that if Internet users view the disputed
domain name in combination with a visit to Respondent’s website, the “total
effect” is that of political commentary by Respondent, capable of protection as
political speech by the First Amendment under the Hustler Magazine standard.
Respondent appears to the Panel to be engaged in a parody of the style or
methodology that Respondent appears genuinely to believe is employed by
Complainant in the provision of political commentary, and for that reason
Respondent can be said to be making a political statement. This constitutes a
legitimate non-commercial use of Complainant’s mark under the Policy. It equally
appears that Respondent is making nominative fair use of Complainant’s mark in the sense of using it to identify a well-known public figure (in a manner that does
not use more of the mark than is necessary and does not create confusion as to
Complainant’s sponsorship of Respondent’s activities). In making such findings,
the Panel makes no assumptions as to the potentially defamatory nature of any of
the content on Respondent’s website, which is beyond the scope of the present
Policy proceeding.

It can be and has been argued by Complainant that the disputed domain name
should be assessed “standing alone” because at least some Internet viewers will
only have that first impression (i.e., they will not click through). However, this
case involves a form of speech arguably strongly protected under the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This Panel is very reluctant to reject
Respondent’s claim of legitimate noncommercial and fair use on the distinction
between viewing of the disputed domain name itself and clicking through to
Respondent’s website. On the same basis by which the Panel has determined the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark – that is, Internet users viewing the disputed domain name will be curious and motivated to
visit the website – the Panel also considers that Respondent’s speech should be
assessed as a whole, both by reference to the disputed domain name and the
content of Respondent’s website (i.e., on the assumption the preponderance of
Internet users will indeed click through).
The Panel determines that Respondent has in the present circumstances
established that it is engaged in legitimate noncommercial or fair use of
Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name.

Isaac Eiland-Hall has also responded personally to Beck with a gentleman’s move and relinquished the original domain name. He sent a letter to Glenn, stating that his interest in fighting the case was to protect the First Amendment from the likes of Beck. He also stated:

But, humor aside, your rhetorical style is no laughing matter. In the context of this WIPO case, you denigrated the letter of the First Amendment law.. In the context of your television show and your notoriety, you routinely and shamelessly denigrate the spirit of the First Amendment.

The site is still going strong and can now be found at two other domains now.

Long-standing union member, Glenn Beck, is now in the hospital where nurses and staff that belong to the Service Employees International Union are presumably disregarding Beck’s relentless attacks on their union as being a part of the International Communist Conspiracy and treating his appendicitis.

Hopefully, when Beck has recovered, he will have a different viewpoint on attempting to silence critics. It is also hoped that he will phone the 1990 Truth Hotline and answer the questions that will not go away concerning the rumors that he raped and murdered a young pregnant girl in 1990.

The Brown Tweed Society has posted two parts of a three part series concerning the rationality and legality of Glenn Beck’s WIPO complaint and they do a much better job of explaining it than most.

If you stumbled across this blog and would like an easy to read, detailed, unbiased, uninvolved rundown of the legal story so far, you will find a it over there.

The World Intellectual Property Organization allowed respondents to reply to Beck’s desperate attempt to stifle free speech, and lawyer Marc Randazza’s response is below.

In my opinion the highlights are from Randazza’s response, I love the part where he bops Beck on the head with Pedobear.

is Mr. Beck really trying to convince this Panel that a website with a video spoof
of the LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE meme, stating that “every time people stop
mocking Glenn Beck, a baby ghost gets turned into a human being” would con
the average into presuming that the website was set up by the Glenn Beck fan
club? The logical pretzel that the Supplemental Filing creates defies any sense
of reason. It is so irrational that one must wonder if it is yet another esoteric
inside joke – an attempt by Mr. Beck to achieve the same level of memetic
success as Pedobear.
CONCLUSION
Step one in getting out of a hole is to simply stop digging. Mr. Beck has
disregarded this logic with a Supplemental Filing that has done little more than
actually prove the Respondent’s position.

Glenn Beck is the butt of a viral joke. He may not get the joke, but this does not
make the joke likely to confuse or subject the domain name to transfer under
the UDRP. Glenn Beck’s failure to understand these basic principles of law does
not make the joke any less humorous, and does not make him any less of the
butt. The First Amendment protects Respondent’s right to make Glenn Beck the
butt, and his hypocritical attempts to squelch legitimate free speech criticism do
nothing to portray himself in a more flattering light. Because his arguments do
not satisfy Section 4(a) of the Policy, his request should be denied. Because he
has attempted to silence a critic by circumventing (and thereby devaluing) the
First Amendment — which he publically (and in this proceeding) claims to love –
he should be deeply ashamed.

once we sign our rights over to international law, the constitution is officially dead.

Glenn Beck

The lawyer for a satirical website has sent Glenn Beck a proposed stipulation(posted below) asking that Glenn agree to allow the Constitution to be the legally guiding principle used by the international body that was originally contacted by Beck’s lawyers. The site in question is the target of a domain name dispute by Glenn Beck, a man who is a number of things including:

• radio show host
  

  This dog eats it's own poo.

• well-known TV personality
• trinket merchandiser
• republican party talking points distributor
• screamer of fire in a crowded theater
• gasbag
• rape and murder suspect
• purported ‘U.S. Constitution Watchdog’

If Glenn signs the document, he may lose his attempt to stifle free speech, if he does not sign it and his attempt succeeds, he will be doing his part in killing the Constitution. Unsurprisingly for a dog, it looks like this self-proclaimed ‘Watchdog” is picking at a festering wound and eating his own shit.
(to read easily, you may need to press ‘zoom’ and be patient. Click ‘Open in new window’
for download or for very large and clear version.)

]]> http://glennbeckinsults.com/wordpress/2009/09/29/is-glenn-beck-attempting-to-murder-the-constitution/feed/ 1