Any Glenn Beck fans out there?
(I'm not just referring to swlip).
Well, either way my friend Marc Randazza of The Legal Satyricon is representing the owner of the website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlin1990.com in a domain dispute filed by Glenn Beck before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
I know, the WIPO? I had never heard of it either, but best I can tell it's some kind of one-world socialist domain enforcement entity funded jointly by the UN, Bill Ayers, and Roman Polanski.
You can read Glenn's WIPO complaint here.
Since it's possible Glenn Beck fans may not also be fans of Gilbert Gottfried, let me explain -- the name of the disputed website is a nod to a routine Gilbert did at the roast of Bob Saget, where he repeatedly referred to.....yes, Saget's rape and murder of a young girl in 1990.
The phrase is now a well-known "internet meme" which if you don't understand ask one of your kids or grandkids to explain it to you.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that Beck fans may be confused by the website.
Marc's response is brilliant, and I urge everyone to take a look. In it he explains the social, cultural, and political background behind the site, the First Amendment implications of Beck's attack on what is clearly political satire, and the utter idiocy of Beck's claim of confusion.
There are too many highlights in Marc's brief, but this should give you a taste:
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.I also really enjoyed Marc's patient and thorough explanation of the evolution of "internet memes" and how God does not really kill kittens when....well, you know the rest.
Have fun betraying your alleged principles, Mr. Beck.