Glenn Beck’s Attempt to Rape and Murder Free Speech in 2009 — Thwarted

GlennBeckCryingwipo logo

Free Speech Wins Again.

The Decision is available here:
Glenn Beck v. Isaac Eiland Hall, WIPO Case No. D2009-1182

Other case documents available here:

Complaint
Request for Stipulation
Response and annexes.
Supplemental Filing
Surreply

I am delighted that I got this decision today, which is the birthday of my friend and mentor, Larry Walters. Larry, this win is hereby dedicated to you. Happy Birthday.

UPDATE: Respondent Isaac Eiland-Hall voluntarily gives Beck the domain, saying “point made, sir.”

Another Update: The Brown Tweed Society does a three part story on the case. In this discussion, the author really gets to the heart of the matter and provides strong analysis of the case and its pleadings. Heck, the BTS also criticizes some of my work, so it does not seem at all biased.

    Part 1

    Part 2

    Part 3

54 Responses to Glenn Beck’s Attempt to Rape and Murder Free Speech in 2009 — Thwarted

  1. Chris_Wilson says:

    Woot!
    Free Speech: 1
    Glenn Beck: 0

  2. [...] http://www.glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com. (For all the case filings and opinion please go here.) If you don’t know anything about this case you should read the full decision to get an [...]

  3. Ro says:

    Take THAT, Glenn Beck!

  4. Ken says:

    You are the wind beneath my wings.

  5. Eric T. says:

    Someone here is having a big week.

  6. Jay says:

    I love that letter to Beck. :)

  7. ES says:

    Shame on your, Randazza, taking advantage of Beck when the liberal conspiracy machine has taken away the use of his appendix.

  8. Jake says:

    Randazza, you win my award for The Man of the Day! Excellent work. This is spreading through my portion of the digital world as we speak.

  9. Dkoss says:

    Mr. Randazza, you are the shit! Congrats on the good work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  10. Patrick says:

    I want to have your babies Marc. But since I can’t, I’ll pass a kidneystone in your honor.

    My nephrologist is ready and on call.

  11. [...] United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization has ruled that Glenn Beck can not use it as an agent to assist him  in stripping the first amendment rights from an American [...]

  12. Congratulations on the win.

  13. drakaan says:

    I’m supremely glad that you prevailed, and that the first amendment reigned supreme. I can’t think of a better example of why constitutional protections on free speech are so important.

    With that said, however, both the parody site and Beck’s response to it seem like overkill to me.

    I don’t watch the guy’s show, and heard of this via groklaw, but if the example videos are meant to be representative of what you were responding to, then I am at a loss as to why there was such a strong response.

    *shrug*

  14. Will Retort says:

    Based on this, I’m thinking creating a satirical domain name myself. Which domain name do you think would be most humorous?

    marcrandazzafondledtodlerinparkrestroom.com

    or

    marcrandazzaexposedhimselftoteengirl.com

    ?

    The site will take a satirical look at scumbag ambulance chasers looking to make a name for themselves?

    Then again, maybe some moron lawyers would be looking for actual case histories under those domain names and not appreciate the incredible humor in the satire?

    Will you agree to represent me to protect my first amendment rights to publish satire?

  15. tbg58 says:

    I think this is a bit of a mixed bag – creating the domain name in the first place was sleazy. Standing up to WIPO -valiant. But voluntarily turning the domain over to Mr. Beck was artful – classy in handing over the domain , artful in rubbing Mr. Beck’s nose in the stink he had made. Kudos for form.

  16. Dave Zan says:

    I don’t know what’s more impressive: the win, or your client giving the domain name to Mr. Beck after the win.

  17. Jake says:

    @Will Retort:

    While your inclination for fair play is, on the surface, admirable, your poor grasp on the environment that spawned the original website speaks volumes about you. You don’t seem to possess the sense of nuance that made the original site so successful. Glenn Beck (and more importantly, his followers) needed a taste of their own medicine, and they got it in spades (if, of course, their level of intelligence is of sufficient scale to appreciate the tactic). The realm in which Beck operates is the realm of cowardice. He is able (and allowed by Fox) to make his points simply by making suggestions, no matter how wildly inaccurate or blatantly false, and staying juuust under the radar of society’s unspoken rules of acceptable conduct. The creator of the website cleverly and pointedly made this apparent to those who would otherwise miss it. Maybe you’re one of those who was made uncomfortable by the cognitive dissonance you surely experienced?

    As for Mr. Rendazza, I don’t know the man, and I wouldn’t presume to speak for him, but I have a sense that he would indeed represent you in a court of law and protect your right to free speech even for your suggested domain that uses his name (rather non-cleverly, IMHO). Amusingly, he would simultaneously have to be levying the charges AND defending you against them, but I digress….. The point you would be attempting to make would backfire in such a way as to leave you looking quite foolish. I say do it.

  18. Jake says:

    EDIT:

    Please excuse my misspelling of Mr. Randazza’s name.

  19. [...] Isaac Eiland-Hall’s lawyer, Marc Randazza [...]

  20. Well done Marc! Congrats to you & Isaac! And a special thanks to Glenn Beck for providing the laughs. :)

  21. SusanP says:

    Well Jake,
    Speaking as one of Mr. Beck’s so called “followers” as are most american’s concerned about the state of their country, you should know: my level of intelligence is pretty high. In fact everyone I know agrees with Mr. Beck AND their intelligence is high as well….which leaves me to wonder just how smart you could possibly be??
    Oh and also the realm Mr. Beck lives and operates in is NOT one of cowardice. In fact he is without a doubt the bravest american I have ever seen. He has stood up to the politicians that seem hell bent to ruin our country in short order. And he didn’t do it by posting some snippy, juvenile, statement online. He did it by telling the american public the truth about what is going on in Washington, plain and simple. You sir, could certainly learn a lesson from Mr. Beck and his patriotic followers!

    • L says:

      SusanP, surely you did not mean to put an apostrophe after the word “American” when trying to pluralize it. If you meant to do so, you would be severely undermining the claim that your level of intelligence is “pretty high.” Or are you talking about “pretty high” in relation to a sheep? (no offense to sheep).

      By the way…your use of an unnecessary apostrophe is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things about your post that undermine your claim to be of “pretty high” intelligence. I won’t waste too much further effort to correct you though. I suspect you’ve turned your ears and eyes off to anyone who does not agree with Glenn Beck, which is, my friend, an assault on democracy, the American spirit of debate, and patriotism as we once knew it.

      I’ll leave you with a rhetorical question: Glenn Beck lives in Connecticut and works at an ideological news outlet that pays him $2 million a year to be provocative. Tell me again how he knows the “truth” about what is going on with people he has never met in a city that is 300 miles away?

      • TranceGemini says:

        Note to self, use “REPLY TO” next time. My response is in a similar vein but not so explicit (I never want to throw bones to the sorts of people who pluralize words with apostrophes…nor those who do not capitalize proper nouns…). XD

  22. On a roll there Randazza!

  23. Will Retort says:

    Jake,

    >> your poor grasp on the environment that spawned the original website speaks volumes about you <> Glenn Beck (and more importantly, his followers) needed a taste of their own medicine, and they got it in spades (if, of course, their level of intelligence is of sufficient scale to appreciate the tactic). <> Maybe you’re one of those who was made uncomfortable by the cognitive dissonance you surely experienced? <> even for your suggested domain that uses his name (rather non-cleverly, IMHO). <> Amusingly, he would simultaneously have to be levying the charges AND defending you against them <<

    Why would he bring charges? I merely asked his opinion on which of the two domain names he found most satirically amusing. I didn't actually register them like his Beck-hating client did. I haven't allowed links to those unregistered domains to be circulated throughout the Internet, like his low life client did. And I posted my comment in a place where Mr. Randazza asks for comments and has the power to moderate what posts make it through. His low life client extended Mr. Beck no such courtesy.

    Mr. Randazza seems to have found the ugly anti-Beck domain name satire hilarious and worth defending on first amendment grounds. I'm sure Mr. Randazza, not being a low-life, scum-bag attorney hypocrite, will find my satire just as amusing and just as protected by our cherished first amendment. My merely asking about less offensive domain names should not offend his expansive first amendment tastes.

    (I say less offensive because the Beck-hating site's domain name cited murder by Beck while my hilarious satire only asked about domain names that suggested sexual misconduct. Mr. Randazza defended the domain name falsely asserting murder was committed (all in satire); surely, a false sexual misconduct assertion is less vile and thus even more defensible?)

    Let's end this futile back and forth.

    Beck-hating zealots like you who read our exchange will no doubt side with you. Reasonable people like me who think the domain name defended by Mr. Randazza was inappropriate, vile, and unworthy of first amendment protections will agree with me.

    I think Mr. Randazza was wrong for defending the hateful domain name he defended. However, I have no reason to believe him to be less than honorable. However, he is misguided to believe our first amendment was designed to permit vile, unfounded claims against anyone, under the guise of satire. Mr. Beck and Mr. Randazza are responsible for what they do, but should not be denigrated for things they have never done.


    Will Retort

  24. Jake says:

    Will Retort,

    You sound nervous.

  25. Marcel says:

    Not living in the US, knowing mr. Beck nor mr. Randazza, I cannot help but being amused by anyone writing:

    >Beck-hating zealots like you who read our exchange will no doubt >side with you. Reasonable people like me who think the domain name >defended by Mr. Randazza was inappropriate, vile, and unworthy of >first amendment protections will agree with me.

    What kind of argument is this? I think that the free speech amendment of the US is one of the best protections against dictatorship there is. My opinion is that the first amendment is specifically to allow me (and you) to make vile statements like you just did? Calling without real knowledge someone a ‘beck hating zealot’ – isn’t that just what freedom of speech allows you to do?

    Just for the record – I don’t hate mr. Beck – I’ve never seen a single one of his shows so cannot judge it.

    /marcel

  26. Will Retort says:

    Jake,

    > You sound nervous.

    Thanks. I think this is a time for all decent people to feel nervous.

    You sound sweet.

  27. Jake says:

    Will Retort:

    “However, he is misguided to believe our first amendment was designed to permit vile, unfounded claims against anyone, under the guise of satire.”

    —-See, Will, this is where you miss the point. You don’t want to see vile, unfounded claims against anyone under the guise of satire. What about under the guise of NEWS? Which is worse? Which is insidious. Which is misleading? Which is dangerous?

    —-First of all, the website was not operating “under the guise” of satire. The website was explicitly and clearly labeled SATIRE in multiple, hard to miss places, so there could be no confusion as to what the point of the website was.

    —-Does Glenn Beck offer such a disclaimer? No. In fact, he does the exact opposite — he opines on a station that explicitly calls itself a source of “Fair and Balanced” NEWS.

    —-So, seriously, take off your partisan glasses for a few minutes and think about that.

    “Mr. Beck and Mr. Randazza are responsible for what they do, but should not be denigrated for things they have never done.”

    —-Was this not EXACTLY the point that the website tried to make regarding Beck’s programming? Indeed, you are actually arguing FOR the website, but you’re not paying close enough attention to your own words to realize that fact.

    —-On another note, you have have a certain righteous air about you, wanting to defend the good name of our cherished first amendment and stick up for those who are unfairly attacked with words. Yet, you simultaneously exhibit an almost Tourettes-like propensity to sling foul-mouthed denigrating attacks.

    —-Just a few:

    “scumbag ambulance chasers”

    “moron lawyers”

    “low life client”

    “a low-life, scum-bag attorney hypocrite”

    “Beck-hating zealots like you”

    —-And none of this was part of your attempt at satire. This was just good ol’ you, calling it how you see it.

    —-By the way, I’m decent, and I’m not nervous. And I am sweet — thank you for noticing.

  28. Will Retort says:

    You’re absolutely right. I did use the terms “moron lawyers” and “scumbag ambulance chasers” and I shouldn’t have.

    My sincerest apologies to all morons out there offended by my lumping lawyers in with you. Likewise, you scumbags have enough problems without being lumped in with the ambulance chasers.

    I feel better now.

    Please, for the sake of the others, let’s end on a note of agreement: You hate Fox News and Glenn Beck.


    will

  29. Zero says:

    Just on a point of contention, what is the point of the “protection of free speech” if, as Will Retort says, “vile, unfounded claims” are not protected? Isn’t the point of free speech the fact that it is free? That people can say whatever they like and it is up to the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the reader to determine for him/herself what to think of it?

    Regardless of your feelings for or against Glenn Beck, to claim the website is “vile” or “not worthy of first amendment protection” is to completely miss the point of the first amendment and free speech. If this satirical site was such a problem for Beck, why didn’t he just address the situation on his show (since he only cares about those who watch) and then leave it be and move on? Instead he decided to attempt to circumvent free speech, regardless of whether you support Glenn Beck or not, you have to admit it was rather hypocritical of him to bring a WIPO complaint.

  30. drakaan says:

    @Jake and Will:

    From the perspective of a newcomer to this issue, you’re both being nutty.

    I’ve heard *of* Glenn Beck before, but never thought he was a news guy…I thought he had a talk radio show once, and got moved on to TV. I would never have assumed that kind of show was meant as news…possibly meant to present a certain view of events, but not news.

    I had not heard of Mr Eiland-Hall before, but read a cached version of the now-defunct page, and, again, I would never have assumed that the site was serious.

    I begin to see that there are things well outside of the realm of free speech that have lead to this spitting contest.

    Just as Mr. Beck is free to opine, so too is Mr. Eiland-Hall. I’d have to give the edge in fairness to Mr. Beck (based on the youtube examples), primarily because there was opportunity for direct refutal in the form of conversation on his show (a comparable courtesy would have been for Mr. Hall to interview Mr. Beck and post the discussion on the website).

    Regardless, free speech is the only significant thing I’ve heard mentioned (the rest is politics, and while it gets people emotional, it’s not crucial to my continued happiness in and of itself).

    That the first amendment was upheld is good. That someone demonstrated that people with websites and people with TV shows can say aggravating things is not so good.

  31. [...] it deplores on the right.  It’s the same despicable tactic famously parodied at the site: GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlin1990.com. It’s just as despicable when the left does as it is when it’s done on the [...]

  32. C.Yee says:

    Kudos. It was the first time I’d visited the website, and I loved it. Thanks for making both the point of satire and of making the point of the right to say it.

  33. Again… keep rolling. Free SPeech is our right! I love how mad some of these people get..

  34. [...] Well, why not turn the tables?  Check out the site, and check out the one by Isaac Eiland-Hall’s attorney, Marc Randazza. [...]

  35. MarWillis says:

    Don’t forget the numerous occasions that Mr. Eiland-Hall and his website asked Glenn Beck to comment on these rumors the he murdered and raped a young girl.

    Was that not the point of the site in the first place? To find the truth? Glenn Beck only needed to deny the rumor.

  36. Lilith Snow says:

    Excellent! Total congratulations to the team that made this happen!!

  37. TranceGemini says:

    **Well Jake,
    Speaking as one of Mr. Beck’s so called “followers” as are most american’s concerned about the state of their country, you should know: my level of intelligence is pretty high.**

    The fact that you typed this and, I am fairly certain, did not mean it in an ironical context proves that your level of intelligence is pretty high as compared to, say, Glen Beck.

    Oh wait.

  38. Arguing about grammar in blog contents is retarded. Why don’t you two stick to the substantive issues?

  39. dan bostdorf says:

    Tied to access website and it is not working!
    GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com

    Long live free speech!

  40. [...] Randazza — flush with recent heady victories and, most likely, grain alcohol — issues a call to arms in the Great War on Apes, a [...]

  41. jfischer1975 says:

    What?nbsp; No love for YTMND in your meme Hall of Fame?

  42. [...] Law, which he called an unimpressive “redress of foolishness.” Additionally, he successfully went toe-to-toe with Glenn Beck over a joke domain name, submitted a $100,000 gay porn offer to Levi Johnston, and his popular [...]

  43. [...] is absolutely the cat’s ass on First Amendment issues — he has more fun than should be legal eviscerating opponents of free speech. I was happy to hear his call to make March “National [...]

  44. Cigars says:

    Again… keep rolling. Free SPeech is our right! I love how mad some of these people get..

  45. [...] Bill O’Reilly successfully cowed Fox’s lawyers into an embarrassing doomed crusade to stop Al Franken’s otherwise forgettable book, resulting in a judicial smackdown that was, given the circumstances, surprisingly mild. Michael Savage tried to work out his issues in a bizarre rant in lawsuit form; he and his tractable lawyer got their asses handed to them. Glenn Beck tried to sue a satirist and got thoroughly bitch-slapped. [...]

  46. Lawyers says:

    Congratulations , free speech should always wins

  47. [...] settled for just $2,185 after being out-dueled by First Amendment superstar Marc Randazza. (Randazza beat Glenn Beck in a 2009 case, a fact that immediately endeard him to my [...]

  48. [...] He doesn’t know whether Glen Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990. But if you think Beck did, he’s make sure you can say so. [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,530 other followers

%d bloggers like this: