Glenn Beck Not Allowed To Rape And Murder An Internet Meme

from the nice-try dept

Back in September, we wrote about Glenn Beck's misguided attempt to gain control over the domain name used as part of an internet meme that is critical of Glenn Beck, GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com (it's a dead site now, keep reading). If you're unfamiliar with the meme, it's mocking a favorite tactic of various cable news talk show hosts, to "ask questions" that are accusatory in nature, whether or not there's any substance to back them up. Glenn Beck didn't accuse the site of defamation or anything, but filed a domain name complaint, saying that it violated his trademark. As we noted at the time, the trademark claim was really questionable -- and, of course, only served to draw more attention to the site and the internet meme.

The site brought on lawyer Marc Randazza who filed one of the most brilliant responses (pdf) to a legal threat that you'll ever see. It's quite amusing. Randazza takes the old "moron in a hurry" test up one level, using the "abject imbecile" test. And then there was this:

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.

Apparently, Randazza's letter worked wonders. The WIPO Arbitration Panel has rejected the attempt to take the domain, saying that it was a legitimate use of Beck's name:

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.

Either way, now that the site's owner has prevailed, he apparently feels he has made his point, and has agreed to voluntarily hand over the domain (pdf), along with an explanation in the First Amendment and how not to respond to internet memes:

It bears observing that by bringing the WIPO complaint, you took what was merely one small critique meme, in a sea of internet memes, and turned it into a super-meme. Then, in pressing forward (by not withdrawing the complaint and instead filing additional briefs), you turned the super-meme into an object lesson in First Amendment principles.

It also bears noting, in this matter and for the future, that you are entirely in control of whether or not you are the subject of this particular kind of criticism. I chose to criticize you using the well-tested method of satire because of its effectiveness. But, humor aside, your rhetorical style is no laughing matter. In this context of this WIPO case, you denigrated the letter of First Amendment law. In the context of your television show and your notoriety, you routinely and shamelessly denigrate the spirit of the First Amendment....

Filed Under: domain name dispute, glenn beck, parody, trademark

Glenn Beck Didn't Rape And Murder Anyone... But He Doesn't Want Websites Discussing It

from the well,-this-should-be-fun dept

Ok, first off, I'll say this: I don't watch 24-hour cable news shows. In the rare moments when I catch any of the talking heads for any of those networks (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC), it makes me somewhat crazy, because none of them seem to have the slightest common sense. Frankly, they're all just a bunch of entertainers who appear to either be completely clueless, or exaggerate and lie for effect. I have little time for such people -- no matter what ideological bent they happen to come from. One of the popular tactics of such shows, is to use the ever popular "report on a rumor" setup, which lets them insinuate something, without ever officially stepping up and saying it themselves. The simplest form is the "some are saying..." lead in that lets these folks spend plenty of time discussing things without ever actually investigating if they're true. But, at times it goes much deeper into finding some random conspiracy theorist, and building them up into a "movement." It seems to happen pretty regularly, and it's rather silly.

In the last couple of weeks, a random internet meme apparently sprung up to highlight this sort of reporting, initiated in a comment on the ever-excellent Fark, it involved a commenter questioning: "Why haven't we had an official response to the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?" The idea, which seems plain to many involved, is not to actually suggest that Glenn Beck did such a thing -- but to highlight this tactic of making a totally bogus rumor into "news" by stating it, and wondering why there hasn't been a denial. A bunch of folks have picked up on this claim and run with it (apparently greatly upsetting some loyal Beck fans), turning it into one of those internet memes with legs.

Someone -- quite anonymous -- then set up a website to chronicle all of this, called (appropriately, given the meme): GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com. The site itself is clear that it's a parody, attempting to highlight this sort of "news" tactic, and the fact that it's often employed by Beck:

This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven't yet seen proof that he didn't. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation.

It turns out that Glenn Beck isn't happy about this either. He's filed a domain name dispute over the domain name, claiming that it violates his trademark: Now, you might see some sort of claim over defamation (but, even that seems iffy, given that it's clearly a parody), but a trademark claim seems really iffy -- and not particularly smart. First, the site in question doesn't have any commerce. It does link to another site that sells stuff, which is how Beck tries to claim that it's a commercial site. For a trademark violation to occur, the name needs to be used in commerce. It's also supposed to be confusing -- but as plenty of "gripes sites" have shown, it's perfectly reasonable to use a trademarked term in a domain name (and, hell, Beck's name isn't even fully registered yet) as a part of a gripe/protest/parody, when it's clearly not run by the actual mark holder.

As for why it's not particularly smart -- whether he wins or loses -- is because he just called a whole bunch of attention to some silly internet meme that clearly wants attention. Beck would have been better off just ignoring it. Instead, in legitimizing it by trying to take it down, many more people become aware of the meme -- and may start calling attention to situations where Beck (and others) make use of such tactics.

Filed Under: domain name dispute, glenn beck, parody, trademark