Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Image
    Abandon all sanity, ye who enter here!

Moderators: ᴶᵛᵀᴬ, Omphalos, Freakzilla

User avatar
Drunken Idaho
Posts: 1197
Joined: 15 Sep 2008 23:56
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Drunken Idaho » 09 Sep 2009 15:38

SandRider wrote:Glenn Beck, by his own admission, is an alcoholic & drug-addict
(reformed, recovered or whatever) and has (untreated) adult ADHD.


Beck admitted to having ADHD?
"The Idahos were never ordinary people."
-Reverend Mother Superior Alma Mavis Taraza

User avatar
Crysknife
Posts: 593
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 02:15
Location: SLC, punk

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Crysknife » 09 Sep 2009 17:18

For some reason, Glenn Beck reminds me of the Dan white character in the movie "Milk". Of course, many republicans do.

Image
Image

User avatar
SandRider
Watermaster
Posts: 6163
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:14
Location: In the back of your mind. Always.
Contact:

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby SandRider » 09 Sep 2009 18:07

Drunken Idaho wrote:
SandRider wrote:Glenn Beck, by his own admission, is an alcoholic & drug-addict
(reformed, recovered or whatever) and has (untreated) adult ADHD.


Beck admitted to having ADHD?



he jokes about it often on his clown show, and I can't find a quote of him
talking about medications - and believe me, I done been lookin' ...
................ I exist only to amuse myself ................
ImageImage

I personally feel that this message board, Jacurutu, is full of hateful folks who don't know
how to fully interact with people.
~ "Spice Grandson" (Bryon Merrit) 08 June 2008

User avatar
Nekhrun
Icelandic Wiener
Posts: 3289
Joined: 10 Feb 2008 16:27

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Nekhrun » 09 Sep 2009 21:29

Do any of you remember on his Headline News show when he was all fucked up on pain meds after his ass surgery going off on the medical system in this country which he now claims is the best in the world? That was good TV.
"If he was here to discuss Dune, he sure as hell picked a dumb way to do it." -Omphalos :character-cookiemonster:

Happy Memorial Day everyone! -James C. Harwood

"Three of my videos have over 100 views."
"Over 500 views for my 'Open Question' video." -Nebiros

User avatar
Ampoliros
Posts: 2518
Joined: 14 Mar 2008 11:22
Location: I think we took a wrong turn...

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Ampoliros » 10 Sep 2009 00:14

yeah the daily show did a juxtaposition of it over his rant on how our system now was the best ever.
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 10 Sep 2009 12:05

It's kinda sad that a sense of reason can only be found on the comedy network.
Image

User avatar
Drunken Idaho
Posts: 1197
Joined: 15 Sep 2008 23:56
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Drunken Idaho » 10 Sep 2009 12:14

Jon Stewart is pretty much the one thing assuring me that the US is still sane.
"The Idahos were never ordinary people."
-Reverend Mother Superior Alma Mavis Taraza

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18157
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Freakzilla » 10 Sep 2009 12:15

A Thing of Eternity wrote:It's kinda sad that a sense of reason can only be found on the comedy network.


Polls say most Americans consider John Stewart their most trusted news anchor. :?
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 10 Sep 2009 12:21

Freakzilla wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:It's kinda sad that a sense of reason can only be found on the comedy network.


Polls say most Americans consider John Stewart their most trusted news anchor. :?


Considering how utterly useless the "news" is (all of them, FOX is just the worst of the shit pile) I'm not surprised that people are looking to alternatives.
Image

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18157
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Freakzilla » 10 Sep 2009 12:33

A Thing of Eternity wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:It's kinda sad that a sense of reason can only be found on the comedy network.


Polls say most Americans consider John Stewart their most trusted news anchor. :?


Considering how utterly useless the "news" is (all of them, FOX is just the worst of the shit pile) I'm not surprised that people are looking to alternatives.



I love his show. The way he uses humor to lampoon politics is genius. I like Colbert too, but he acts a little too full of himself. I'm sure it's part of the act but it makes me a little sick.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Ampoliros
Posts: 2518
Joined: 14 Mar 2008 11:22
Location: I think we took a wrong turn...

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Ampoliros » 10 Sep 2009 12:56

I think its because John Stewart show us the bullshit in the story first wheras the mainstream media gives us a story and leaves us wondering where the bullshit is.
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus

User avatar
Nekhrun
Icelandic Wiener
Posts: 3289
Joined: 10 Feb 2008 16:27

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Nekhrun » 02 Oct 2009 14:58

Has Glenn Beck said anything about the rumor that he was having sex with Roman Polanski while Roman was raping a 7th grader?
"If he was here to discuss Dune, he sure as hell picked a dumb way to do it." -Omphalos :character-cookiemonster:

Happy Memorial Day everyone! -James C. Harwood

"Three of my videos have over 100 views."
"Over 500 views for my 'Open Question' video." -Nebiros

User avatar
SandRider
Watermaster
Posts: 6163
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:14
Location: In the back of your mind. Always.
Contact:

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby SandRider » 02 Oct 2009 15:04

Nekhrun wrote:Has Glenn Beck said anything about the rumor that he was having sex with Roman Polanski while Roman was raping a 7th grader?



I have never in my life heard someone talk against
bringing the Olympics to an American city, until it was
announced that Obama would go to the Copenhagen meeting.

then, here's Beck talking about how the Olympics are a
financial blackhole for the host city, & blah blah blah

btw, I totally called Rio as the winner -
only logical choice among the finalists ...
................ I exist only to amuse myself ................
ImageImage

I personally feel that this message board, Jacurutu, is full of hateful folks who don't know
how to fully interact with people.
~ "Spice Grandson" (Bryon Merrit) 08 June 2008

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 02 Oct 2009 15:07

To be fair to this asshole who should be either shot at or shat on upon sight - the Olympics are a financial black hole for the host city.
Image

User avatar
SandRider
Watermaster
Posts: 6163
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:14
Location: In the back of your mind. Always.
Contact:

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby SandRider » 02 Oct 2009 15:11

this is true - ask Atlanta, Salt Lake City, &etc.

my point was Beck's motivation - naysaying anything
Obama does ...
................ I exist only to amuse myself ................
ImageImage

I personally feel that this message board, Jacurutu, is full of hateful folks who don't know
how to fully interact with people.
~ "Spice Grandson" (Bryon Merrit) 08 June 2008

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 02 Oct 2009 15:39

Hence this thread!
Image

User avatar
Crysknife
Posts: 593
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 02:15
Location: SLC, punk

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Crysknife » 02 Oct 2009 17:10

A Thing of Eternity wrote:To be fair to this asshole who should be either shot at or shat on upon sight - the Olympics are a financial black hole for the host city.


That's not exactly true, Atlanta and Los Angeles both turned a profit on the Olympics because they had existing infrastructure and they didn't have to build a bunch of useless crap like the Chinese. And don't let anyone tell you Salt Lake came out worse than before. We now have light rail and over all better mass transit and some very cool facilities that get plenty of use. Not to mention the exposure which we will make money on for years to come. I know my business did very well right before and durring the Olympics.

I think Chicago would have come out just fine, and it would have boosted the jobs in that area which is sorely needed.

Too bad.
Image

User avatar
SandRider
Watermaster
Posts: 6163
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:14
Location: In the back of your mind. Always.
Contact:

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby SandRider » 02 Oct 2009 17:19

http://gb1990.net/legal/response/D2009- ... 0Brief.pdf

1
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER
Mercury Radio Arts, Inc &
Glenn Beck
Complainants
v.
Disputed Domain Name:
glennbeckrapedandmurderedayou
nggirlin1990.com
Isaac Eiland-Hall
Respondent
RESPONSE
(Rules, ¶ 5(b))
On September 21, 2009, the Respondent received a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding from the
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (Center) by both email and fax
informing the Respondent that an administrative proceeding had been
commenced by the Complainant in accordance with the Uniform Policy
for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, adopted by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26,
1999 (the UDRP), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 (the UDRP Rules), and the
WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the WIPO Supplemental UDRP Rules). The Center set October 11,
2009 as the date for the submission of a Response by the Respondent.
The Respondent hereby responds to the statements and allegations in
Complaint and respectfully requests the Panel to deny the remedy
requested by the Complainant.
2
Respondent’s Contact Details
(UDRP Rules, ¶ 5(b)(ii) and (iii))
For the purposes of the administrative proceeding, the Respondent’s
contact details are as follows:
Name: Isaac Eiland-Hall
Address: c/o Marc J. Randazza, Esquire
Telephone: 978-865-4101
Fax: 305-437-7662
E-mail: marc@mjrpa.com
The Respondent’s authorized representative in this administrative
proceeding is:
Marc J. Randazza, PA
P.O. Box 5516
Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930
Tel: 978-865-4101
Fax: 305-437-7662
The Respondent’s preferred method of communications directed to the
Respondent in the administrative proceeding is as follows:
Electronic-only material
Method: e-mail
Address: marc@mjrpa.com
Contact: Marc John Randazza
Material including hardcopy
Method: fax
Address: P.O. Box 5516, Gloucester, MA 01930
Fax: 305-437-7662
Contact: Marc John Randazza
The Parties stipulated on September 21, 2009 that unless required by
technological limitations, that all communications should be transmitted
electronically between the parties and the Centre.
3
Response to Statements and Allegations Made in Complaint
The Requested Relief Should be Denied
(Policy, ¶¶ 4(a), (b), (c); Rules, ¶ 5)
I. Introduction
The Complaint fails for multiple reasons. The Complaint fails to establish
rights as required by the UDRP. Even if the Panel accepts that the
Complaint establishes these rights, the Respondent has legitimate rights to
the domain name.
To evaluate this case, the Panel must understand the cultural, social, and
political background behind the Respondent’s website. Without this
knowledge, the Respondent’s selection of the domain name might seem
puzzling, mean-spirited, and at first blush might seem to carry indicia of a
false accusation against the Complainant. However, none of this is true.
The website is a legitimate criticism site, consists of political satire, and thus
the Respondent has legitimate rights in the domain name.
Mr. Beck’s attempt to censor this criticism is improper and should be
rejected.
A. Why Are We Here? This is not a UDRP Issue.
The UDRP is not designed to resolve all Internet-related grievances. It is
designed to handle a “relatively narrow class of cases of ‘abusive
registrations.’” See Second Staff Report on Implementation Documents
for the UDRP ¶ 4.1(c).1
None of the factors in ¶ 4(b) of the UDRP apply. There is no evidence that
Respondent has registered and used the domain name for the purpose of
selling it for profit. Respondent is not engaged in a pattern of
cybersquatting. Respondent did not register the domain name to disrupt
the business of a competitor, he registered it to pay homage to an
existing internet meme that poked fun at Glenn Beck, to poke fun at
Glenn Beck directly, and to express his political opinions.
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 1 http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-second-s ... 4oct99.htm
4
could believe that the domain name would have any connection to the
Complainant.
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. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine,
Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use
this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent’s
constitutional rights.
B. The UDRP is not for Defamation Claims.
Mr. Beck attempts to gather sympathy by arguing that he is being
defamed. That is quite clearly not the case, as Respondent’s site is
satirical political humor, not unlike the famous Campari ad in Hustler v.
Falwell, supra. See Annex A. Even if Beck’s defamation claims were valid,
these claims are not properly brought under the Policy. See, e.g., Jules
Kendall v. Donald Mayer, WIPO Case No. D2000-0868; Norton Peskett v.
Domain Privacy / Tom Hampson, WIPO Case No. D2009-0724.
The majority of the comments appearing on the website
which are detrimental to the Complainant are worded as
opinion rather than fact. After moving past the title and the
graphic on the landing page, it becomes obvious that the
website is a criticism website. Whether statements on the
website are defamatory is not within the scope of the Policy,
and is therefore not a matter for this Panel to decide.
II. The Complaint fails under ¶ 4(a) of the UDRP.
In order for the Complainant to prevail, he must prove:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
in which the Complainant has rights; and,
5
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
domain name; and,
(iii) The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
A. The Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in
the domain;
The Panel must understand the concept of Internet memes, must
understand the particular internet meme in play, and should apply the
First Amendment to these proceedings.
1. Internet Memes
The Panel cannot evaluate this case unless it understands the underlying
internet meme. The website is the name of an internet meme that came
into existence just prior to the Respondent’s registration of the domain.
“The term Internet meme is a phrase used to describe a catchphrase or
concept that spreads quickly from person to person via the Internet,
much like an esoteric inside joke.”2 See Internet For Beginners (Annex B)
From “Mr. Spock Ate My Balls,” (defunct) to ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG
TO US3 to “Leeroy Jenkins”4 to a slew of sub-memes based on the movie
“300”5, internet memes are as old as the internet itself, and almost as
ubiquitous as actual cybersquatters. See Squidoo “Top 10 Internet
Memes” (Annex C). Memes are often puzzling to those who have never
encountered them before, and they are similarly puzzling to the subjects
of the memes when they involve real people.
For example, the director of the movie “Downfall” is likely baffled at the
Internet meme that has grown from that film. At the end of the film, there
is a dramatic scene depicting Adolf Hitler’s inner circle breaking the news
to him that the war is lost. As Hitler pounds the table, the actual dialogue
from the movie depicts his frustration with the impending end. However,
amateur editors have turned the English subtitles from that scene into a
humorous meme, changing the dialogue to Hitler being angry about
countless disappointments. See, e.g., Hitler finds out the truth about 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme.
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_b ... long_to_us
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins
5 http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/TO ... NE_IN_HELL
6
Santa,6 Hitler hates Kanye West,7 and Hitler gets banned from World of
Warcraft.8 Nobody believes that the director of the critically acclaimed
“Downfall” would have directed a script in which Hitler screams “YOU
HOMOSEXUAL BLOOD ELF!”
Similarly, nobody really thinks that “Every time you masturbate… God kills
a kitten,” which was an internet meme that originated on the same
website that spawned the Glenn Beck meme, Fark.com. See Wikipedia
“Every time you masturbate … God kills a kitten” (Annex D). Memes are
not supposed to be statements of fact, and audiences understand this.
Memes often involve famous people, and they are often unflattering.
Richard Gere has never dignified the infamous “Gerbil story” meme with a
response, even though the story is nasty and false, and it too has entered
the culture as an irrepressible meme, even making an appearance in The
Simpsons, Episode 183. This is the price of celebrity – you just might wind
up in a meme, and you might not deserve it. Richard Gere did nothing to
bring the meme monster to his door. On the other hand, Mr. Beck has all
but begged to become the subject of a meme. His wish has been
granted, and then some. In a hilarious example of geometric memetics,
the Beck Meme is now merging with other memes such as the Hitler in
“Downfall” meme. 9 See also Reddit post10 (commenter “ytknows”
merging Beck meme with the “Spock ate my Balls” meme).
2. The Glenn Beck 1990 Meme
The raw materials of the Glenn Beck Raped and Murdered a Young Girl in
1990 meme (hereinafter, the “Beck Meme”) are twofold. The meme is a
parody of from Glenn Beck’s own argumentation style mated with a
Gilbert Gottfried routine performed during the Comedy Central Roast of
“comedian” Bob Saget. During Gottfried’s speech, he kept repeating (in
his trademark nasally voice) that there were rumors that Bob Saget had
raped and killed a girl in 1990. Gottfriend admonished listeners to stop
spreading this rumor – which had never existed in the first place. As there
is no more sure fire way to destroy a joke than to explain it, much less in 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isig_09MGTg
7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqhQMYX8lM
8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JF03i7NfIU
9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nleNP_APkWo
10http://hu.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/9gfm4/78_of_americans_believe_glenn_
beck_was_involved/
7
legal papers, the Panel is asked to view this short video of the
performance.11 The humor equation is simple: (Outrageous Accusation) +
(Celebrity) + (Question Why the Celebrity Does Not Deny the Accusation)
= (Confirmation of the Falsity of the Accusation + Laughter)
A poignant example of Beck using the Gottfried Technique is this Glenn
Beck interview with Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim. Beck famously
said:
"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."
See transcript at Annex E. Video available here.12
The rhetorical style is simple. Beck attacks Ellison by asking Ellison to prove
that Ellison is not “working with our enemies,” thus placing the burden
upon Ellison to “prove” that the accusation is untrue.
Quite simply, Beck’s shtick is simply a cheap imitation of Gilbert Gottfried,
sans the humor.
This kind of behavior led a poster on Fark.com to give the meme wheel a
spin on August 31, 2009. On that forum, a user by the name of “oldweevil”
gave birth to the Beck Meme at precisely 08:32:26 PM by posting the
following comment:
Why haven't we had an official response to the rumor that
Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?
Others joined in the fun, and the internet had its newest meme. See Fark
discussion board (Annex F). Immediately thereafter, “Glennbeck”
became a verb on urbandictionary.com meaning “To rape and murder
someone (especially a young girl in 1990).” See Annex G. The meme 11 http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=41913.
12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbg604XqPY
8
spread to Yahoo Answers. See Annex H. And the next day, Respondent
registered the domain name in order to memorialize the meme and to
further the meme’s criticism of Beck. Both are legitimate interests and
neither constitute bad faith under the Policy.
For a full discussion of the history of the Beck Meme see Sam Bayard, Will
Glenn Beck Sue a Defamatory Website in 2009? (Annex I); Jeffrey Weiss,
'Glenn Beck as Murderer' Meme: Vaccine or Infection? (Annex J);
Michael Stone, Glenn Beck 1990: Politics of Retribution (Annex K).
The Respondent’s site itself invokes the Glenn Beck – Keith Ellison interview:
"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?"
Beck has tried to paint himself as a “babe in the woods” who has fallen
victim to a vicious character attack. In reality, Beck is an accomplished
and deliberate manipulator of public opinion, and it is absurd to suggest
that he himself does not understand the nature and function of
Respondent’s website. Given his long history of using the Gottfried
Technique, Beck must have recognized that the respondent has merely
presented Mr. Beck with a mirror. If Beck does not like what he sees, the
Respondent is not to blame.
3. The Respondent, who registered and used the domain
name to criticize the Complainant and pay homage to,
and participate in, an Internet meme, has legitimate
Rights in the domain name.
Although this seems to be the first time a subject of an Internet meme has
tried to kill the meme by filing a UDRP action, there are many UDRP
decisions involving complainants attempting to take down legitimate
criticism websites, and those decisions should guide this Panel.
There are two views under the Policy when it comes to criticism sites. See
“WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions”,
Paragraph 2.4.13 Under either view, the domain name is a permissible use. 13 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/sear ... ex.html#24
9
View 1 states: “The right to criticize does not extend to registering a
domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the owner’s
registered trademark or conveys an association with the mark.”
View 2 states: “Irrespective of whether the domain name as such
connotes criticism, the respondent has a legitimate interest in using the
trademark as part of the domain name of a criticism site if the use is fair
and non-commercial.”
View 1 only applies if the Panel rejects the notion that this dispute
between two Americans should not be guided by the First Amendment.
It is the Respondent’s position that the Panel’s decision should be guided
by the U.S. Constitution, and presumably Mr. Beck would prefer to take
the American view rather than the transnational view.14 Nevertheless, in
the event that the Panel is inclined to adopt the internationalist view, the
Respondent will provide arguments against both Views.
a) Under the disfavored View 1, the Complainant’s
claim fails unless the Panel rejects the “Moron in
a Hurry” test.
View 1 should be the easiest to dispense with. The claimed “mark” is
GLENN BECK. This is clearly not identical to the domain name.
Accordingly, in order for the criticism to fail under View 1, the mark must
be “confusingly similar to” GLENN BECK.
While the Respondent prefers to apply U.S. law, the principles of U.S. law
and that of other common law countries are the same when it comes to
the likelihood of confusion between a junior user and a senior user of a
“mark.” However, U.K. and Canadian jurists have a much pithier and
more to-the-point way of discussing clear cases where no confusion could
issue – the “moron in a hurry” test.
The Panel must examine the alleged mark and the domain name and ask
whether any sensible member of the public would ever be confused. To 14 This presumption is founded in Beck’s own expressed views. Specifically, Beck rejects
any attempt to have international law supersede U.S. Constitutional Law when the two
are in tension. For example, on April 2, 2009, Beck described Harold Koh’s legal views
(Koh is a transnationalis) as a “threat to American democracy.” See Annex L, a transcript
of Beck’s show on that day. As such, Respondent would presume that Mr. Beck would
wish for the Panel to adopt View 2, as does the Respondent.
10
further immortalize the words of Mr. Justice Foster, the only person who
could possibly be misled would be "a moron in a hurry". See Morning Star
Co-Operative Ltd. v. Express Newspapers Ltd [1979] FSR 113, 117;
Newsweek, Inc. v. British Broadcasting Corp., [1979] RPC 441, 444 (Mr.
Justice Walton approving of Foster’s analysis). Canadian courts have also
approved of this short-cut analysis rather than a tortured multi-factor
analysis that is favored by we Americans. See, e.g., Ratiopharm Inc. v.
Laboratoires Riva Inc., [2006] F.C.J. No. 1130 (Fed.C.C. 2006); Mattel, Inc.
v. 3894207 Canada, Inc., 2006 SCC 22 (Can. Sup. Ct. 2006); Molson
Canada v. Oland Breweries Ltd., [2001] O.T.C. 129 at P 21. (‘It is not
sufficient that the only confusion would be to a very small, unobservant
section of society; or as Foster J. put it recently, if the only person who
would be misled was "a moron in a hurry’.”)
b) Under View 2, the Complaint fails because the
Respondent’s domain and website are used as
part of a non-commercial criticism site.
Generally speaking, the UDRP is not intended to apply the law of any
particular nation, but when the Complainant and the Respondent are
citizens of the same country, it is appropriate to do so.
In this case, it is imperative to do so, as the Complainant and the
Respondent are both Americans, the website is based in the US, and the
registrar is in the US. See Xtraplus Corporation v. Flawless Computers, WIPO
Case No. D2007-0070 (“UDRP panels have in applicable cases repeatedly
stated that a U.S.-based website engaged in noncommercial criticism of
a U.S.-based trademark owner’s activities enjoys First Amendment
protection, even if the domain name incorporates the complainant’s
trademark”).
In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Paul McCauley, WIPO Case No.
D2004-0014, the Panel clarified how and when the First Amendment
should apply to UDRP proceedings.
[T]he United States' robust free speech tradition, which derives
from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
tends to tolerate more criticism than the laws of other
countries.
The Panel explained that in most UDRP cases over criticism sites resulting in
a transfer, the parties were not Americans, and non-U.S. law was applied
to the case. The prevailing view, as the Howard Jarvis case outlined, is
11
that in cases involving U.S. parties, Panels apply U.S. law and find that
legitimate criticism sites are protected under the First Amendment.
The best example of this principle is the case noted above, Jerry Falwell v.
Gary Cohn WIPO Case No. D2002-0184, which rejected Falwell’s claim not
only because he did not have trademark rights in his name, but because
the domain names at issue in that case, <jerryfalwell.com> and
<jerryfallwell.com> were used to mock Jerry Falwell by actually making it
seem as if the websites at those domains were themselves published by
Mr. Falwell. Even though an unsuspecting visitor could have typed in
either of the domain names in that case in seeking to find Falwell’s own
website, his attempt to stifle his critics through the UDRP process was
turned back. In this case, the facts are not so sympathetic to the
Complainant – as anyone looking for Glenn Beck’s website would be very
unlikely to type in the Respondent’s entire domain name in a quest for Mr.
Beck’s particular shtick.
UDRP complaints involving Americans are routinely denied when the
website criticizes or offers commentary about the complainant. See, e.g.,
Sermo, Inc. v. CatalystMD, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-0647 (transfer of
criticism site denied even when respondent defaulted); Bridgestone
Firestone, Inc. v. Myers, WIPO Case No. D2000-0190 (claim denied as
bridgestone-firestone.net was a criticism site); TMP Worldwide Inc. v.
Potter, WIPO Case No. D2000-0536 (claim denied as tmpworldwide.net
and tmpworldwide.org criticized the complainant); Bruce Springsteen v.
Jeff Burgar and Bruce Springsteen Club, WIPO Case No. D2000-1532
(denying Bruce Springsteen’s attempt to seize <brucespringsteen.com>
from a fan site); Bosley Medical Group v. Kremer, WIPO Case No. D2000-
1647 (denying complaint when respondent merely planned to launch a
criticism site); Bakers Delight Holdings Ltd. v. Andrew Austin, WIPO Case
No. D2008-0006 (website with no commercial content “dedicated to
genuine criticism” without commercial gain nor an attempt to divert users
looking for complainant’s site was legitimate fair use); Pensacola Christian
Coll. v. Gage, NAF Case No. FA101314 (claim denied as
pensacolachristiancollege.com was a criticism site); Action Instruments,
Inc. v. Technology Associates, WIPO Case No. D2003-0024 (same).
In U.S. courts, would-be censors meet the same fate. See Taubman v.
Webfeats, 319 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 2003). In that case, the Court held that
<taubmansucks.com> was protected speech, even if there was
economic damage to the plaintiff, stating:
"We find that Mishkoff's use of Taubman's mark in the domain
name <taubmansucks.com> is purely an exhibition of Free
12
Speech, and the Lanham Act is not invoked. And although
economic damage might be an intended effect of Mishkoff's
expression, the First Amendment protects critical commentary
when there is no confusion as to source, even when it involves
the criticism of a business. Such use is not subject to scrutiny
under the Lanham Act."
"Hence, as per the language of the Lanham Act, any
expression embodying the use of a mark not ‘in connection
with the sale . . . or advertising of any goods or services,' and
not likely to cause confusion, is outside the jurisdiction of the
Lanham Act and necessarily protected by the First
Amendment."
See also, Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005) (no bad faith
intent to profit, thus no ACPA violation for a website criticizing the views of
Jerry Falwell); TMI Inc. v. Maxwell, 368 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2004) (noncommercial
criticism site not a violation of the dilution act nor the ACPA);
Lucas Nursery & Landscaping, Inc. v. Grosse, 359 F.3d 806 (6th Cir. 2004).
(<lucasnursery.com> used for legitimate criticism site and defendant
showed no intent to mislead visitors or commercially profit from use of the
domain).
Recognizing these principles, the UDRP tolerates nominative fair use of
trademarks in the context of a criticism site. In this particular case, since
the likelihood of confusion is nonexistent and there are no other indicia of
bad faith, the Panel should find for the Respondent. See, e.g., Covance,
Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. The Covance Campaign, WIPO
Case No. D2004-0206; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Paul
McCauley, WIPO Case No. D2004-0014.
c) Beck misapplies tarnishment theory
Beck argues that “the domain name constitutes classic tarnishment.”
Respondent is at a loss as to what “classic tarnishment” means. In the
UDRP context, “tarnishment” means something different than whatever
Mr. Beck is trying to imply it means (which is unclear).
Criticism and tarnishment are not the same thing. Associating an existing
mark with unwholesome products is “tarnishment.” For Example, in
Hasbro, Inc. v. Internet Entertainment Group, Ltd., 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1479
(W.D. Wash. 1996), there was an adult entertainment site at
<candyland.com>. The registrant of that website was not trying to
critique the children’s board game, but rather was simply selling
13
pornography under a venerable existing trademark. There is no
tarnishment if Respondent makes a "[n]oncommercial use of a mark," 15
U.S.C. § 1125(c)(4)B), which is the case when the site is used for criticism.
See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987) (First
Amendment is defense to dilution tarnishment claim when use is
noncommercial parody).
The panel in Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0505 explained this in the context of the UDRP:
Tarnishment in [the UDRP] context refers to such unseemly conduct
as linking unrelated pornographic, violent or drug-related images or
information to an otherwise wholesome mark.
In Newell Operating Company v. HostMonster.com and Andrew Shalaby,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1805, the panel explained the difference between
tarnishment and merely speaking ill of a complainant:
In contrast, fair-use criticism, even if libelous, does not
constitute tarnishment and is not prohibited by the Policy, the
primary concern of which is cybersquatting.
See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0662 (protection for genuine criticism sites is provided by
Policy’s legitimate interest and bad faith prongs).
d) There is no commercial use
Beck makes a desperate play to characterize the Respondent’s site as a
commercial enterprise by noting that it has a link to another criticism site,
<foxnewsboycott.com>, which in turn sells items to support its protest
message. See Complaint at ¶ 24. The mere fact that Respondent’s site
may have a link to another site that may itself sell something does not
make the Respondent’s site a commercial enterprise.
In fact, in many of the cases cited in part (b), supra, the protest sites had
direct commercial elements to them. Nevertheless, when the overall
purpose of a site is to communicate a message, and the message is not a
mere subterfuge to infringe on an existing trademark, there is no bad faith.
B. The Complainant has failed to prove “Rights” under the Policy, and
even if he had, the domain name is neither identical nor confusingly
similar to the claimed mark.
14
Although the Complaint fails for the above reasons, it must be noted that
Beck has even failed to make a case that he has rights, as that term is
defined by the UDRP.
Although Mr. Beck is famous, fame does not automatically vest his name
with trademark rights.
1. Personal Names are Not Protected Under the UDRP
“While the UDRP does not specifically protect personal names, in situations
where an unregistered personal name is being used for trade or
commerce, the complainant can establish common law trademark rights
in the name.” WIPO Overview ¶1.6.15
2. The Complainant has no registered rights
The Trademark Application shown in Complaint Exhibit C has been filed
on an “Intent to Use” basis. ITU applications are granted no weight under
the Policy. The Application shown in Exhibit D is, admittedly, likely to issue
given recent events in the trademark file. However, this was not the case
when the original complaint was filed – as this did not occur until
September 16, 2009, and this was after the date that the domain name
was registered – September 1, 2009.
Given these facts, the USPTO documents in Exhibit C and D to the
Complaint are of no value.
3. The Complainant has failed to provide adequate evidence of
common law rights
The Rules compel the Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the
statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy,
these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Complainant relies upon common law rights and it was incumbent upon
him to provide evidence of those rights with the complaint. He has failed
to do so. “Where there is uncertainty as between conflicting allegations,
insufficiency of evidence is a basis for finding against the party with a
burden of proof,” Percy Miller dba Boutit, Inc. Soldier University, Inc. v.
Divine Mafa dba The New No Limit Records, Inc., NAF Case No. 114771.
15 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/sear ... index.html
15
Mr. Beck’s complaint is replete with arguments of counsel that he is
famous. See Complaint at ¶ 13-19. These were wasted arguments, since
nobody, especially not the Respondent, disputes this. Mr. Beck seems to
believe that because he is famous, his name is therefore a trademark. This
is neither the case under the UDRP, nor under U.S. law.
The record is void of evidence of Mr. Beck’s “common law rights.” They
may exist, but it was incumbent upon Mr. Beck to make the case for it,
and he offered only six paragraphs of conclusory statements of counsel.
Bald assertions of counsel are not sufficient to prove rights under the UDRP.
See David Pecker v. Mr. Ferris, WIPO Case No. D2006-1514. No evidence of
secondary meaning is provided. The only piece of evidence that was
given is a printout of Mr. Beck’s website. The mere fact that Mr. Beck is a
celebrity with a website, without more, does not demonstrate trademark
rights.
Jerry Falwell was much more famous than Mr. Beck, and like Mr. Beck, he
was notoriously thin skinned about being criticized or mocked, and he
deployed phalanxes of lawyers to make ill-fated attempts to silence his
critics. See Hustler v. Falwell, supra.
Falwell, realizing that the U.S. Constitution would not tolerate his attempts
to censor his critics, also turned to the UDRP in an attempt to circumvent
the U.S. Constitution. See The Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty
Alliance v. Gary Cohn, Prolife.net, and God.info, WIPO Case No. D2002-
0184. In that case, Falwell’s claim failed on two independent grounds –
one being that despite Jerry Falwell’s far-reaching fame, his rights in his
personal name were not protectable under the Policy (the other is
discussed below)
Similarly, when Anna Nicole Smith attempted to seize
<annanicolesmith.com> from its Registrant, the learned panelist in that
case clearly articulated how these cases are viewed under the Policy in
Anna Nicole Smith c/o CMG Worldwide v. DNS Research, Inc. NAF Claim
No. FA0312000220007:
[T]he mere fact of having a successful career as an actress,
singer or TV program star does not provide exclusive rights to
the use of a name under the trademark laws. The cases
require a clear showing of high commercial value and
significant recognition of the name as solely that of the
performer.
16
CONCLUSION
It is specious at best for Mr. Beck to assert that his fans, or the public as a
whole, would confuse Respondent’s website with Mr. Beck himself—unless
of course it is Mr. Beck’s view that his fans and the average internet user
are in fact hurried morons. Respondent presumes that this is not how Mr.
Beck regards his audience. And, even if he does so regard his audience,
this is not a basis for upholding his complaint.
Given that Mr. Beck cannot genuinely believe or reasonably assert that
Respondent’s website will cause such confusion, there can be only one
purpose to filing this complaint: as an attempt to silence a critic because
he doesn’t like being criticized.
However, Mr. Beck’s lawyers are no fools. They are well aware that the
First Amendment will give full protection to the Respondent’s website.
Therefore, we find ourselves mired in a bogus “defamation” claim under
the guise of this UDRP complaint. But, this is not the forum to raise such a
claim. If the “defamation” alluded to in the Complaint were truly believed
to have legal validity, this case would have been brought in a U.S. court.
As the learned panel stated in La Quinta v. Heartland Times, WIPO Case
No. D2007-1660, “something more than criticism is required to establish
illegitimacy and bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.” In this case,
nothing more exists and the claim must be denied.
Administrative Panel
(Rules, paras. 5(b)(iv) and (b)(v) and para. 6; Supplemental Rules, para. 7)
The Respondent accepts the Complainant’s decision to have this matter
resolved by a single member panel.
Other Legal Proceedings
(Rules, para. 5(b)(vi))
None.
Communications
(Rules, paras. 2(b), 5(b)(vii); Supplemental Rules, para. 3)
17
A copy of this Response has been sent or transmitted to the Complainant
on September 28, 2009 by email to Mr. Beck’s attorney, Matthew Kaplan
via email to mkaplan@cdas.com and by facsimile to 212.974.8474.
This Response is submitted to the Center in electronic form only, as
stipulated to by the parties and as accepted by WIPO on September 22,
2009.
Certification
(Rules, para. 5(b)(viii), Supplemental Rules, para. 12)
The Respondent agrees that, except in respect of deliberate wrongdoing,
an Administrative Panel, the World Intellectual Property Organization and
the Center shall not be liable for any act or omission in connection with
the administrative proceeding.
The Respondent certifies that the information contained in this Response is
to the best of the Respondent’s knowledge complete and accurate, that
this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to
harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under the
Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended
by a good-faith and reasonable argument.


tl;dr

synopsis: Glenn Beck is, in fact, a douchebag. STFU & GTFO.
The Complaint fails for multiple reasons.
................ I exist only to amuse myself ................
ImageImage

I personally feel that this message board, Jacurutu, is full of hateful folks who don't know
how to fully interact with people.
~ "Spice Grandson" (Bryon Merrit) 08 June 2008

User avatar
Mandy
Cat Herder
Posts: 1700
Joined: 08 Feb 2008 20:18
Contact:

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Mandy » 02 Oct 2009 18:24

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hypatia approaches one.

User avatar
SandRider
Watermaster
Posts: 6163
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:14
Location: In the back of your mind. Always.
Contact:

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby SandRider » 02 Oct 2009 18:53

Nipples has the best links !!

led to this one:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... n-beck.ars
................ I exist only to amuse myself ................
ImageImage

I personally feel that this message board, Jacurutu, is full of hateful folks who don't know
how to fully interact with people.
~ "Spice Grandson" (Bryon Merrit) 08 June 2008

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18157
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Freakzilla » 02 Oct 2009 19:53

Crysknife wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:To be fair to this asshole who should be either shot at or shat on upon sight - the Olympics are a financial black hole for the host city.


That's not exactly true, Atlanta and Los Angeles both turned a profit on the Olympics because they had existing infrastructure and they didn't have to build a bunch of useless crap like the Chinese. And don't let anyone tell you Salt Lake came out worse than before. We now have light rail and over all better mass transit and some very cool facilities that get plenty of use. Not to mention the exposure which we will make money on for years to come. I know my business did very well right before and durring the Olympics.

I think Chicago would have come out just fine, and it would have boosted the jobs in that area which is sorely needed.

Too bad.


We got a nice new baseball stadium out of the deal and we still use all the other venues. The mountain biking, equestrian and kayak courses still get a lot of use.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Seraphan
Posts: 749
Joined: 03 Jul 2008 08:36
Location: Right Behind You!
Contact:

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Seraphan » 03 Oct 2009 07:48

SandRider wrote:Nipples has the best links !!

led to this one:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... n-beck.ars

:clap: Glenn Beck's busted.
Image
"The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand." - Frank Herbert
“This tutoring is dialectical. Literature makes us better noticers of life; we get to practice on life itself; which in turn makes us better readers of detail in literature; which in turn makes us better readers of life. And so on and on.” - James Wood

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 04 Oct 2009 12:18

Crysknife wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:To be fair to this asshole who should be either shot at or shat on upon sight - the Olympics are a financial black hole for the host city.


That's not exactly true, Atlanta and Los Angeles both turned a profit on the Olympics because they had existing infrastructure and they didn't have to build a bunch of useless crap like the Chinese. And don't let anyone tell you Salt Lake came out worse than before. We now have light rail and over all better mass transit and some very cool facilities that get plenty of use. Not to mention the exposure which we will make money on for years to come. I know my business did very well right before and durring the Olympics.

I think Chicago would have come out just fine, and it would have boosted the jobs in that area which is sorely needed.

Too bad.


How long ago were those? I heard somewhere that no one has made money off one in decades, I know Calgary didn't, though we have some neat ski jumps, and Vancouver sure as hell won't (there is a huge FUCK2010 movement in Vancouver, people are pissed as hell that money is getting wasted on the olympics when people need affordable housing). It does create jobs, but they're short term (not that that isn't better than nothing).

Sorry, I've developed a distaste for the olympics, boycotted the chinese one, and will boycott the vancouver one. After that, we'll see.
Image

User avatar
Drunken Idaho
Posts: 1197
Joined: 15 Sep 2008 23:56
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby Drunken Idaho » 05 Oct 2009 10:19

SandRider wrote:http://gb1990.net/legal/response/D2009-1182%20Response%20Brief.pdf

tl;dr

synopsis: Glenn Beck is, in fact, a douchebag. STFU & GTFO.
The Complaint fails for multiple reasons.


That response is full of win! If Beck didn't get it before, he sure does now. Not that I think getting the joke would stop him. I just love how it spells out clearly for him why the joke exists, and why he sucks.

I had no idea about the Gottfried connection though.
"The Idahos were never ordinary people."
-Reverend Mother Superior Alma Mavis Taraza

User avatar
SandRider
Watermaster
Posts: 6163
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:14
Location: In the back of your mind. Always.
Contact:

Re: Glenn Beck is a Douchebag

Postby SandRider » 05 Oct 2009 11:21

I think my favorite part now is how Beck got all butthurt & lawyer'd up,
but just didn't think poor little Isaac could get some Boston Legal himself.

typical internet crap, too - I'll sue you !
go ahead ... wait, you can't sue, no slander or libel exists here ...

I'll take you to internet court, then you'll be sorry, boy, will you be sorry !!

and a bunch of Dutch guys (or who-ever) in robes & white wigs are shaking their heads...

WTF ? Whoo iss Glenn Beck ? This too stoopid, GTFO my internetz court now, pleaze ...

These brain-dead AM radio idiots caint' deliver a pizza, much less an election.
-James Carville
................ I exist only to amuse myself ................
ImageImage

I personally feel that this message board, Jacurutu, is full of hateful folks who don't know
how to fully interact with people.
~ "Spice Grandson" (Bryon Merrit) 08 June 2008


Return to “˱”