Glenn Beck vs. Free Speech, round 2

Glenn Beck is on the record as a believer in free speech and the US Constitution. He makes his living off the very concept. The question, then, that must be asked, is "Why would Glenn Beck appeal to an International UN panel (The WIPO) in an attempt to strip another American of their First Amendment rights?" Clearly Glenn Beck is suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance if he thinks that he enjoys First Amendment protection as a prominent member of the media, while other Americans do not.

Note: The website we are talking about here is: http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com

Accordingly, when lawyer Marc Randazza filed his response to Glenn Beck's WIPO complaint, he also sent a letter to Glenn Beck's lawyers proposing that both parties stipulate to US First-Amendment principles being applied in this case. This makes sense, as both parties are American citizens (at least, I think they are- I have never seen Glenn Beck's birth certificate for verification).

From the letter:

To be candid, we found the fact that Mr. Beck filed this action at all to be most puzzling. Although, it was obvious why he did not file in a U.S. court given the law surrounding nominative fair use of trademarks as fully explained in our Brief. Naturally, a defamation claim as alluded to in Mr. Beck’s complaint would be humiliatingly doomed as well in a U.S. court.

The letter later states:

Accordingly, we found it to be most ironic that Mr. Beck, facing the fact that the U.S. Constitution would stand in his way in a U.S. court, sought to bring this action before an international domain name arbitration panel. On March 30, 2009, he said on his show:

Let me tell you something. When you can't win with the people, you bump it up to the courts. When you can't win with the courts, you bump it up to the international level.

The letter then goes on to say:

We are certain that despite our disagreement with Mr. Beck’s legal position, that all parties involved hold equal reverence for the First Amendment. Therefore, I have prepared a proposed stipulation that will ensure that no matter which panelist is assigned to this case, the First Amendment will illuminate these proceedings like rays of light from the Torch of Liberty.

The full text of the proposed stipulation is as follows:

WHEREAS, the parties to this dispute are all U.S. Citizens

WHEREAS, the parties to this dispute desire to ensure that U.S. law and U.S. Constitutional principles are given controlling weight in the above-styled proceeding,

The Parties hereby stipulate to the following measures in this action

1. The Parties hereby stipulate that the U.S. Constitution, including (and especially) the First Amendment thereto should apply to these proceedings and should govern the Panel’s decision in this case.

2. The Parties hereby stipulate that the Panel shall not enter a decision in this case that would be contrary to the protections afforded to American citizens under the First Amendment, regardless of any international principles previously adopted by other UDRP panels or other international bodies.

The full text of the letter and proposed stipulation are here.

One would think that a member of the American media would jump at the opportunity to ensure that this case is decided according to U.S. law and the Constitution, and that the First Amendment is not eroded or curtailed by an international panel. The shocker, then, is that Glenn Beck has not done so. His lawyers have not responded to the proposed stipulation, leading us to conclude that Glenn Beck is just fine with the erosion of the right to free speech, as long as it is not his free speech that is being curtailed.

I should also mention that we still don't have a response from Glenn Beck to the question:
Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?