Glenn Beck according to South Park

Last night's South Park episode took on right-wing media demagogue Glenn Beck. For folks in the US, the episode is available to watch HERE.

Some obvious parallels to the recent "Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Girl in 1990?" saga are present. Cartman gets his start doing the morning announcements, quickly expanding his media empire from audio-only, to video, to writing books. The main target of his attacks is student body president Wendy Testaburger, who is blamed for all manner of ills at the school. The attacks continue and escalate rapidly from maintenance issues at the school to being a drug-addicted slut, to being responsible for a Smurf genocide.

Cartman's grand plan disintegrates when he finds his rhetorical "asking questions" style turned back on him, suggesting that it was his illicit relationship with Smurfette which was actually responsible for the wiping out of the Smurfs, and the untimely death of Smurfette.

The lesson here is the same as the one delivered by the World Intellectual Property Organization last week to Beck in its denial of his complaint against Isaac Eiland-Hall- that employing a rhetorical, accusatory, "just asking questions" style to attack others leaves you open to the same tactics. Will Glenn Beck learn from this South Park episode? Probably not. The upside is that this means that there will be no interruption in the steady stream of idiocy, providing continued LULZ for people who are less impressionable than Butters.

The Glenn Beck 1990 story goes big-time

The story of Isaac Eiland-Hall's WIPO victory over Glenn Beck was all over the interwebs today. Huffington Post, Gawker, Slashdot, NPR, The Register, and even Weekly World News covered the victory at the international arbitration panel.

The site was erroneously reported to be down by some sources, but is still up and operating at http://gb1990.com/ even though Eiland-Hall voluntarily gave the original domain (GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com) to Beck following the decision in the case.

New sites have already popped up, the most amusing of which (in my opinion) is GlennBeckIsNowAPublicLaughingstock.com -consisting of the full WIPO decision. This isn't going away Mr. Beck. The people want to know the truth.

So, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl?

Now that the WIPO has ruled on GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com, and the First Amendment and Free Speech have emerged unscathed (the First Amendment was wearing its chastity belt), what happens now?

The WIPO decision notwithstanding, the domain owner has given control of the domain to Beck. Now that the domain has been ruled to be protected political speech, the road is clear for ordinary citizens to continue to host blowhards from all points on the political spectrum on their own petards. The site and the movement, however, live on at gb1990.com. Several additional domains also point to the site, and the highlighting of hypocrisy will continue unabated.

Glenn will be returning to the radio and TV tomorrow after his bout with appendicitis. Hopefully, he will take a few minutes to finally address the question of whether Glenn Beck Raped and Murdered a Young Girl in 1990. Now that there is no longer any pending litigation, there is no conceivable reason to avoid the issue. If he continues to remain silent, I think we can only take his continued silence as a tacit admission of guilt. The 1990 truth hotline is waiting.

Why is Glenn Beck Pro-Censorship?

This has been bothering me for a while now. Glenn Beck proclaims loudly and vehemently on his show (and through his lawyers in WIPO complaints) that he is vehemently pro-free speech and loves the first amendment. His actions, however, give lie to the claim.

First, filing a UDRP complaint with the WIPO is not a pro-free speech action. If he succeeds, Beck will be establishing the precedent that criticism sites violate copyright- potentially silencing thousands of websites which criticize corporations and individuals for perceived unethical and illegal practices. Despite the claims in his filings that he supports the First Amendment, merely filing the complaint is an anti-first amendment action.

Second, his opposition to Net Neutrality is a decidedly anti-free speech position. Neutrality simply assures that the internet will continue to operate as it always has. Opposing it means that Time Warner could block access to timewarnersucks.com, or that Fox or Mercury Radio Arts (Beck's media company) could pay ISPs to block access to GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com. Again, this position is clearly not one of someone who respects the First Amendment.

The conclusion that must be drawn from Glenn Beck's actions is that he is actually pro-censorship. As to why- I can only speculate, but if I were to guess, I'd say that Glenn doesn't want anybody to be able to expose his smarmy and disingenuous tactics.

PS- If I'm wrong, Glenn, please let me know. Email and telephone are fine for contacting me, but I would not recommend sending a carrier pigeon, as my cat would probably eat it.

Glenn Beck: It's not cesnorship if I do it

Today on his show, Glenn Beck called the internet "the last thing that is truly free." Of course, it won't be for long, if Beck has his way. Glenn Beck's ability to maintain cognitive dissonance in his rants against perceived government control of the media, and his own actions in attempting to silence his critics is astounding. In case you missed it, Beck has filed an action with the WIPO requesting that the domain glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com be taken away from the person who registered it. WikiNews today published an interview with Marc Randazza, the lawyer representing the person who started the criticism site, and WikiPedia has a good article on the case.

Hypocricy, thy name is Beck

I sat down to watch Glenn Beck's show on Fox News Channel today wondering what manner of insane inanities would dribble out of whichever orifice Glenn speaks from. I didn't have to wait very long to hear something good, as I was rewarded with this gem in Beck's opening rant:

"They don't respond to these questions, which should tell you an awful lot, shouldn't it?"

That's an interesting position to take for a person with unanswered questions of his own. Rumors, questions and speculation have been circulating online for over a month now, and we still no answer to the question "Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?" So, I give you Glenn Beck's rhetoric turned back at it's source: He doesn't respond to these questions, which should tell you an awful lot, shouldn't it?
Another segment of Beck's show today focused on the danger of the government regulating the media, both online and broadcast. On this, I agree. Restrictions on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are abhorrent, and detrimental to open and honest public discourse. In Glenn's own words (again from today's show):

"Freedom of speech is the most important right."

"If we're not allowed to say things that other people find offensive... then we're not free to really talk about anything."

Well put, and a position worth upholding, Mr. Beck. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck's actions speak louder than his words. In a blatant display of hypocrisy, Glenn Beck uttered the above words while actively engaged in a legal action (filed with the international World Intellectual Property Organization to skirt any pesky First Amendment issues) to silence a website satirizing his rhetorical style. Actions speak louder than words, don't they? To be fair- the subject matter (the alleged rape and murder of a young girl in 1990) is offensive. Satire must be brutal to make it's point. However- what were Glenn Beck's own words again?

"If we're not allowed to say things that other people find offensive... then we're not free to really talk about anything."

There you have it, folks. Hypocrisy at its worst. So again, I say:
Hypocrisy, thy name is Glenn Beck.

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?