Glenn Beck is a Loser. In Court.

So there’s this guy over on the Fox News channel, Glenn Beck. Perhaps you’ve heard of him?

Apparently, he’s a bit polarizing.

Sidenote: I’m going to try and get through this post as impartially as possible. Bear with me if I happen to let the curtains part and reveal the Fox-hating wizard behind them.

The conservative commenter has a unique….style….that can rub some folks the wrong way and he’s often accused of using cheap rhetoric and parlor tricks (vaseline under the eyes to induce “crying”) to support his points. Despite all this, he’s very popular, garnering a couple million viewers each night.

But some folks view him as something beyond annoying. They regard him as part of what’s wrong with the state of political discourse in this country, that he’s counterproductive to finding positive solutions to the problems we as Americans all deal with.

On September 1, 2009, a website appeared, glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com. The site is inactive now, but it was launched by Eiland Hall, a critic of Beck’s, as a way of pointing the finger back at Beck’s specious rhetorical methods. The claim made in the URL isn’t something Hall ever believed or wanted anyone to believe. It was more about making an unsupported statement and the impact that can have.

Needless to say, Mr. Beck wasn’t pleased. Rather than let the site fade away in obscurity and be forgotten, he filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), arguing a trademark violation of the name “Glenn Beck”, which Beck does have trademarked.

Last week, the issue was resolved. The WIPO found that people would obviously not be confused by the unflattering domain, thinking it was something Beck endorsed, something Beck based his complaint on. They also agreed with Beck’s assertion that it was defamatory and essentially said the legal equivalent of “So?”

Buoyed by his victory, Hall celebrated by issuing one last parting shot to Beck in the form of an open letter:

It bears observing that by bringing the WIPO complaint, you took what was merely one small critique meme, in a sea of internet memes, and turned it into a super-meme. Then, in pressing forward (by not withdrawing the complaint and instead filing additional briefs), you turned the super-meme into an object lesson in First Amendment principles.

It also bears noting, in this matter and for the future, that you are entirely in control of whether or not you are the subject of this kind of criticism. I chose to criticize you using the well-tested method of satire because of its effectiveness. But, humor aside, your rhetorical style is no laughing matter. In this context of the WIPO case, you denigrated the letter of First Amendment law. In the context of your television show and your notoriety, you routinely and shamelessly denigrate the spirit of the First Amendment. The purpose of the expressive freedoms embodied in the First Amendment is not to simply permit the greatest possible scope of expression, but also, in doing so, to also strive for excellence in the conveyance of ideas. Rather than choosing to strive for excellence and civic contribution, you simply pander to the fears and insecurities of your audience. And in the process, you do them, and all of us, a great deal of harm.

Shame on you Mr. Beck.

Hall then abandoned the offending website and offered to give the keys over to Beck if he wanted them. No word if he accepted.

I think there are a few lessons to be learned here:

1. Don’t feed the trolls. Beck would have been best served never acknowledging the site’s existence and giving Hall the attention he wanted. Award one Fizzle-Pop™ Brand Fizzle to Mr. Beck.
2. If you’re going to base your trademark violation argument on whether or not people might be confused as to whether or not you actually endorse and support the claim that you raped and murdered someone, you may want to rethink your case. Another Fizzle for Mr. Beck!
3. The internet works (sometimes)! One, unknown guy was able to take on a significant media figure and draw a little bit more attention to some perceived problems using the freedom of the web. A Fizzle-Pop™ Brand Pop to Mr. Hall!
4. The phrase “Shame on you…” is very cliché and should really be abandoned at this point. A Fizzle for Mr. Hall.

Some questions for you to chew on:

Was Hall’s exercise appropriate as a critique of Beck? Is it ok to “fight fire with fire”? Did Hall lose credibility by engaging in the type of language that he was accusing Beck of? Is satire always ok? Did Beck have a legitimate case against the site?

Let me know in the comments!

Comments

[KurtHustle]

I think satire is one of language's greatest tools, but resorting to the same tactics as Beck is a bit hypocritical. It is successful, however, in showing that even though Beck loves to dish it, he certainly cannot take it.

Ultimately, Beck's views are sensationalism disguised as journalism, purely ratings clutching dreck. Unfortunately some people cannot see through his pro-wrestling style Glenn Beck character and believe his rhetoric which I would question if the real Beck actually follows.

[Myldmnrd]

When does a parody go to far? And how similar, as Hall thinks so, is a defamatory statement made in the domain name he created to a personality that does political commentary. Beck says in his broadcasts that the opinions are his and that you (the viewer or listener) should research and make up your own mind about what he says. In my opinion there is a line. When someone reports on something and then backs it up with audio or video of the statement(s) made, which is often his shtick, is not the same as me saying a derogatory statement about someone. I'm just if saying, if you are going to make a statement, make it true. If he said Glenn Beck was a fat filthy drunk I wouldn't have a problem with that, but a rapist an a murderer, without proof! Don't you think that's a line that no one should cross. I certainly wouldn't, not even with my worst enemy. I think he was just looking for some attention, cause he had none up until this point, as he admits on his website. Do you think that's the road we should be taking? If so, I'm sure I could get you more attention than you want. Thanks for reading Will.

BB

[Will]

KurtHustle: I think the creation of the domain was a bit hypocritical, but it did serve its intended purpose, so it was ultimately effective. I don't think any of the parties involved are saints.

Myldmnrd: I certainly don't want to see willmuggedanoldladyforbusfare.com any time soon, so don't even think about it. :) I don't know that I necessarily condone what Hall did, but it's difficult to not see the point he was trying to make. Beck is known for inflammatory statements that many, like Hall, feel have little or no factual support. Ultimately, none of this is going to change anyone's mind. Beck adherents will continue to listen and those who find him repugnant will continue to do so as well.

[Myldmnrd]

You are safe from any inconvenient domain names popping up from me. You are far from my worst enemy. Why Beck does have a tendency to over emphasize his opinions, the point that I'm trying to elude to is that at no time is it appropriate to delve into innuendo that Mr Beck, or anyone for that matter, raped and killed a young girl. Rape and murder take a slight step up from political commentary, or even, although depraved, mugging an old lady. Why I do see the basic point that Mr Hall was trying to make, where's the line drawn? I think if Mr Hall want's to make a point, put up a site that refutes Mr Becks statements, and then call it his opinions. Where as Mr Hall may have won on the WIPO stage, I have a sneaking suspicion it's not over yet.
You are right in the fact that no one will be swayed on this. True believers of any side are not easily dislodged from their ideology.