Mr. Beck is an ardent supporter of the First Amendment right to free speech. ...Complainants' action is directed at the wrongful acts of Respondent in his registration of a domain name that completely subsumes the trademark "Glenn Beck" and links that trademark with raping and murdering a child, thus constituting bad faith registration, not protected speech.
While I get that a website named glennbecksucks.com may be less offensive than GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com, both names are clearly not connected with Glenn Beck other than that they are about him. I would argue that the second is actually more valid as a parody site, because it actually uses the same tactics Beck does, whereas the first is simply stating an opinion. With regards to Glenn Beck's ardent support of the First Amendment, that claim is laughable. If he is such an ardent supporter, why has he not agreed to the application of the First Amendment in this case, as was requested a month ago?
Marc Randazza (Isaac Eiland-Hall's lawyer) responds:
The logical pretzel that the Supplemental Filing creates defies any sense of reason. It is so irrational that one must wonder if it is yet another esoteric inside joke – an attempt by Mr. Beck to achieve the same level of memetic success as Pedobear.
Brilliant. Glenn Beck wants to be the new Pedobear. Given that, he may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 after all. Randazza concludes with this:
Glenn Beck is the butt of a viral joke. He may not get the joke, but this does not make the joke likely to confuse or subject the domain name to transfer under the UDRP. Glenn Beck’s failure to understand these basic principles of law does not make the joke any less humorous, and does not make him any less of the butt. The First Amendment protects Respondent’s right to make Glenn Beck the butt, and his hypocritical attempts to squelch legitimate free speech criticism do nothing to portray himself in a more flattering light. Because his arguments do not satisfy Section 4(a) of the Policy, his request should be denied. Because he has attempted to silence a critic by circumventing (and thereby devaluing) the First Amendment -- which he publically (and in this proceeding) claims to love -- he should be deeply ashamed.
Well and eloquently put.
All of the legal documents can be found here
P.S. If Glenn wants to dispute any of the claims made, he can email me, leave a comment, or call the "Glenn Beck 1990 Truth Hotline." If he doesn't then Glenn Beck must really have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, and he must really want to be the next Pedobear. Just like Anita Dunn must have an altar to Mao Tse-Tsung in her bedroom if she doesn't call Beck's "Hotline," right, Glenn?
