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."

Comments

Re:Has the real question been answered?

[Graff]

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.