Forums | MacLife

Why does Glenn Beck hate the 1st Amendment?

An arbitrator has rejected controversial talk show host Glenn Beck's contention that the domain name glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com infringes his trademark. World Intellectual Property Organization arbitration panelist Frederick Abbott ruled Friday that the less-than-flattering domain name was protected by fair use principles because the URL, when combined with the site's content, constitutes protected speech.
...
he decision appears to mark a significant win for digital rights advocates because a ruling in Beck's favor could have encouraged other subjects of online parodies to take their complaints directly to the WIPO rather than U.S. courts, which are bound by the First Amendment. Some U.S. courts have ruled in other cases that parody sites don't infringe in trademark, even if they use a famous name in the URL.

Sam Bayard, assistant director of the Citizen Media Law Project, cheered the ruling for that reason. "It's good to see that this WIPO arbitrator had no interest in allowing Beck to circumvent the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution," he said in a blog post.

Although he won the case, Eiland-Hall on Friday offered to transfer the domain name to Beck. "I want to demonstrate to you that I had my lawyer fight this battle only to help preserve the First Amendment," he wrote in a public letter to Beck. "Now that it is safe, at least from you (for the time being), I have no more use for the actual scrap of digital real estate you sought."

First amendment does not give the right to infringe trademarks.

resedit wrote:

Seriously, you guys are a joke.

Without all the facts you argue that Glenn Beck and his ilk contributed to the death of the Census worker in their talk about the government, even though they explicitly stated they do not approve the use of violence, but it's perfectly fine for the Onion to make a joke about wishing Glenn Beck was dead.

What a bunch of smurfing frauds.

I hope you're not talking about me.

resedit wrote:

First amendment does not give the right to infringe trademarks.

It gives the right to create parody and satire.

Why is it meaningless?

Someone complained that Beck doesn't like the first amendment because he filed suit to protect his trademark.
That's why I pointed it out.

Using Glenn Beck's trademark for a web site does not fall outside that scope.
There have been numerous cases before (including Apple) that set precedence on this issue.

resedit wrote:

First amendment does not give the right to infringe trademarks.

He wasn't infringing on any trademark.  Misusing?  Possibly, and that's what the lawsuit was effectively over, but the judge disagreed.

resedit wrote:

Using Glenn Beck's trademark for a web site does not fall outside that scope.
There have been numerous cases before (including Apple) that set precedence on this issue.

Except for the cases of the fraudulent use of trademarks to imply endorsement, they have all been clear where either satire or a review was being made. Heck, that site could have used the actual graphics used on Glenn Beck's site (if he has one) for the purposes of satire. Beck had no case except for hoping that the guy behind the site didn't have sufficiently deep pockets to protect himself, and as the maker of the site points out Beck has no one else but himself to blame for making http://gb1990.com/ an Internet sensation.

resedit wrote:

Use of his trade name in the web site is where the problem occurs, which is why Glenn tried to get the web site (apparently successfully)

Trademark infringement is relevant in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising of goods and services in a manner likely to confuse consumers. This has nothing to do with trademark infringement. It has everything to do with protected political speech, the use of parody against a public figure which was unanimously upheld in Hustler v Falwell.

I understand y'all get a kick out of this slander that isn't quite slander.
But really, it's time to grow up.

Actually, we're getting a kick out of Glenn "we must save American Constitutional principles" Beck suing to stop the free exercise of speech.

But go ahead and miss the point if it's the only way you can feel good about yourself.

Why would he voluntarily give it to Beck?
Are you sure he's telling the truth?

resedit wrote:

Why would he voluntarily give it to Beck?
Are you sure he's telling the truth?

Yes

Ars Technica wrote:

After winning the WIPO dispute, Eiland-Hall decided to poke the beehive one last time. He issued a public letter (PDF) to Glenn Beck which opens by noting that "I have prevailed in the WIPO action that you filed against me. I write now to voluntarily relinquish the disputed domain to you, even though you did not win the case."

The ruling is from an arbitrator, it does not set any legal precedent.

However, cases like the one where Apple took the iMac related domain name do.

"I want to demonstrate to you that I had my lawyer fight this battle only to help preserve the First Amendment" sounds like load of sophistic crap to me. I think he did it because he knew he couldn't afford the legal costs involved in escalating it, where there's a good chance he would lose.

His traffic is largely because of the use Glenn Beck's trade name, and is just as infringing as if I opened up a restaurant called "McDonalds Sucks".

Last edited by resedit (2009-11-10 10:14 pm)

btw - glenn beck being a public figure isn't what makes the slander OK - it's the bull smurf posing it as a question and not stating it outright that makes it squeak past the laws.

Same tactic the pharisees would use, big list of laws and loopholes to do what they want, but the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus rebelled against that system by pointing out that intent is what matters.

The owner of the web site is no champion of free speech.