Slashdot Mirror
Glenn Beck Loses Dispute Over Parody Domain
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."
I would imagine most of the comments I just read were by those who have never even seen or listened to Beck's show. Why? Because I have. Beck BACKS UP claims and does more research than most main stream media, who generally worship at the feet of the democrat party. The quotes he provides are on video and can be looked up on You-Tube. Often they are taken from the person's own speeches (and no, not out of context). It's simply rather difficult, for example, for White House officials to deny their admiration for communist dictator Mao Tse Tung, although I imagine that frosts their gonads that Beck keeps exposing their beliefs.
Calling the accusation of fictional rape of a young girl parody is ridiculous. Stooping to that level means you are simply trying to assassinate a person's character. But when it's done against a conservative, it's called parody. If it was done to a liberal, it would be defamation and slander.
And we know the left (with an agreeable media) NEVER tries to take down someone they don't like. Just like the claims of Rush Limbaugh and racism...oh wait!
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
Liar.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Difference being that there is one bit of evidence that Obama could produce which would shut people up about it, which for some reason he has yet to do. Whereas the 'accusation' against Beck is entirely non-disprovable seeing as he didn't have a camera watching his moves 24/7 during the year of 1990.
And? Bush was a complete failure and should have been impeached. That isn't nearly the same thing that Beck does. That's being honest. Olbermann said what he wanted done. Beck lies and implies and calls names and never backs up anything with facts. Olbermann is an actual journalist, not a propaganda mouthpiece of the Republican party like Beck is.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
LOL! its the blue states that are so successful, eh? I wish I could still find that citation, but over last years elections I saw a map broken down not by state, but by precinct. The vast majority of the country was red, with only a few of the major cities in blue. It also had a break down of how much government welfare went to red vs blue states, how much government housing there was, and the average income. Red states were better in every regard.
Even without the citation, take a look at how great the democrats have done in areas like detroit (falling apart more every day) or seattle (crime skyrocketing), southern california (rampant unemployment), new york (do i even need to say anything here). With out fail, blue leadership has been killing all our major cities.
Yes well I'm both a watcher and a fan.
I don't like where Obama (and Sarkozy and Conroy and Gordon Brown) are taking western civilization. It's as if they are trying to restore the monarchies/oligarchies that existed pre-1800, where the government (nobility) restricts and circumscribes the daily routines of its citizens (commoners) rather than allow true liberty, and I am a fan of anybody who challenges them.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" - Thomas Jefferson. He also said, "I hope we shall crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
Actually, if you catch his show you'll see that he actually directly accuses people and even backs it up with evidence. I'm not a fan of his, he's a bit too confrontational for me, but whenever I do catch it he seems to have a pretty solid backing for what he is talking about. I'm sure that there's plenty of hyperbole involved, there always is with political pundits, but he certainly seems no worse than other such media personalities from all ends of the political spectrum.
That being said, the people who made this website are probably technically in the right but they are certainly morally in the wrong. When you attempt to smear someone with guilt through association or by asking a suggestive question all you are doing is proving that you can't argue intelligently. This is doubly true when you claim you are doing it to give someone a taste of their own medicine. It's not a valid form of argument, either argue your case rationally or don't bother the rest of us with these antics.
Sapere aude!