The World Internet Property Organization (WIPO) has just ruled that the site, described by its owner Isaac Eiland-Hall as a “satirical critique of Beck’s conspiratorial politics,” was “strongly protected” under the First Amendment. A ruling, which I imagine may open a floodgate for the creation of similar sites should Beck remain as zeitgeisty and controversial as he has been these last few months. From the ruling:
WIPO’s arbitration panel agreed that the website appeared “to be engaged in a parody of the style or methodology that (Eiland-Hall) appears genuinely to believe is employed by (Beck) in the provision of political commentary, and for that reason (Eiland-Hall) can be said to be making a political statement.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Sure, it opens the floodgate, but most of the new sites will be coming after others, such as O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Malkin, et al. Probably richly funded by the George Soros gang.
petefrt on November 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM
But what this ruling means is that if you wanted to you could set up a parody site from the right and it’s also covered as well. It’s just that I think we would all be surprised if any smears from the Right actually appeared.
LastRick on November 10, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Well, on the flip side, it gives Beck tacit permission to say anything he wants about this guy, his site and any others that pop up. Certainly frees up a lot of time if one doesn’t have to worry about the truth. Personally, I think Beck is equal to the task. In fact, if it is considered precedent, and it probably is; it allows all of us to say pretty much what we like about pretty much anyone we choose whether it’s true or not. Why bother with facts,they have been rendered obsolete. Let’s run with it, shall we? Think of the possibilities!
jeanie on November 10, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Very convoluted, they “assume” a lot.
the_nile on November 10, 2009 at 8:43 PM
10-to-1 that ruling change should a similar Obama website pops up.
Enoxo on November 10, 2009 at 8:43 PM
I don’t even know what this site is. Someone want to give me the short version, what’s the beef? Doesn’t Media Matters attack Beck all the time?
Daemonocracy on November 10, 2009 at 8:45 PM
I remember reading this on Fark a day or so ago and, needless to say, the things parodied about Obama were vicious. Can’t find the link now, I wonder if Drew scrubbed it.
LastRick on November 10, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Since when does the WIPO care about the first amendment?
Skywise on November 10, 2009 at 8:47 PM
ok wait, now I remember hearing something about this. I never thought much of it then and never visited the site. It looks liek the site is no longer up so I have no frakin clue how far it went other than the absurd title.
So does this mean people can put up “ObamaisaKenyanUsurper.com” sites and have it protected as “parody”?
Daemonocracy on November 10, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Warning: Possible Language
Take a look at this video, which is what spawned the internet meme.
Instead of Bob Saget, put Glenn Beck.
Enoxo on November 10, 2009 at 8:50 PM
I’d probably favor the ruling, as the remedy for false speech is more free speech, not less. But I’d agree that it’s the progressive radicals who will
useabuse it most. Smearing is their SOP.petefrt on November 10, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Good. It wasn’t funny, and I read the Fark thread as it unfolded, and I know it was meant to display Beck’s style in a funny way but stupid way. I’m glad we still have the right to satirize famous people, no matter how ugly it is.
Free Constitution on November 10, 2009 at 8:51 PM
It’s a site that was anonymously put up (though the creator didn’t cover his tracks very well) to satirize Beck’s style of saying things like, “Now I’m not saying that Anita is a Maoist, but isn’t it interesting how she doesn’t even think to qualify a laudatory statement about Mao?” (Might not be the best example — since it’s not accurate — but you get the idea.) He said stuff like, “Now we’re not saying that Beck committed these heinous acts*, but why doesn’t he deny them?” It’s pretty disgusting. Eiland-Hall tried to cover his tracks, then denied he even set up the site, but it appears this lawsuit outed him:
In some sense, that makes it a win for Beck.
* Child rape and murder, in this case. Too bad Hollywood doesn’t love Beck.
calbear on November 10, 2009 at 8:52 PM
It’s called Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Satire wins. Satire doesn’t have to be funny; that’s a common misconception.
Beck is a public figure and a big Constitutionalist. I’m surprised and a bit disappointed he even sued. I wouldn’t have bothered. Lawsuits just spread the libel around, every single time. In some cases, the libel (even if you win) ends up in law books studied by people for decades or centuries.
In the UK, an actor sued a journalist who called him ugly. He won. Now the case is taught in every law school and he is known as “that ugly lawsuit guy.” Good move.
fivefeetoffury on November 10, 2009 at 8:55 PM
I’m in favor of UK style libel laws. Power abused is power that needs to be curtailed.
Horatius on November 10, 2009 at 9:01 PM
I’ve seen the meme..I just saw hugh hefner on dancing with the stars. Anyway, I’ve seen the meme other places and understood the point they were trying to convey, but it wasn’t effective. I was unaware of the lawsuit. It’s a shame Beck didn’t completely ignore it in the first place.
NoStoppingUs on November 10, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Enoxo,
I guess you saw the comments on the Bob Saget thread at Utube……….
di butler on November 10, 2009 at 9:07 PM
This isn’t a lawsuit, and WIPO has exactly nothing to do with the First Amendment or any other facet of the Constitution.
This writer is an idiot.
Pablo on November 10, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Uh huh.
Enoxo on November 10, 2009 at 9:12 PM
We’ll find out soon enough. I look forward to testing your theory.
Ronnie on November 10, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Took the words right outta my fingers….
MrScribbler on November 10, 2009 at 9:21 PM
My idea for a new site: georgesorosstranglespuppies.com
Axeman on November 10, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Do you think I would be sued if I created this website?:
algorefellateshissonsmalefriends.com
or
michaelmooredoesthenastywithfarmanimals.com
I have a feeling they would win a case against me if I created such a website.
Glenn Beck, OTOH; not so much. The down side of bucking the system is the system will find ways to screw you over.
mizflame98 on November 10, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Nope. Too many people believe that about Obama so it wouldn’t be considered satire.
mizflame98 on November 10, 2009 at 9:35 PM
The reason we have laws is so we don’t have to take the law into our own hands. If the law won’t protect you, then do the same thing to them but 10,000 worse.
Blake on November 10, 2009 at 9:38 PM
IsaacEilandHallrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com
Jim Treacher on November 10, 2009 at 10:14 PM
BarakObamaRapedAndMurderedTheEconomyIn2008.ugh
DrAllecon on November 10, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Wow, I guess that guy with the website was on to something.
simplesimon on November 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM
I wonder if Mr Eiland-Hall is self employed or works a company or corporation that can be pressured in some way. People like him need to learn that acting like a dick has consequences, usually financial.
Hellrider on November 10, 2009 at 10:48 PM
HelenThomasEilandHallDeadSheepThreeWaySexTape.com
- The Cat
MirCat on November 10, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Thread Winner!
mizflame98 on November 10, 2009 at 11:06 PM
But what this ruling means is that if you wanted to you could set up a parody site from the right and it’s also covered as well.
You haven’t been playing this game very long, have you?
Merovign on November 10, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Wow, so I guess the ObamaRapedAndMurderedAGirlIn1990.com is ok now.
BS.
I disagreed with the Falwell case, I disagree with this one. I do NOT THINK we should be able to say “Obama Raped And Murdered A Girl In 1990″ without answering a cause for defamation.
Public figures, Obama and Britney Spears included, should NOT be subject to defamatory statements. Stating OPINION is one thing, stating KNOWN FALSEHOODS AS FACT is another. That’s why we have a cause for defamation.
Free speech is what keeps us free. And when intentionally libelous, there should be recourse. When there is no recourse, how do you know what is true and what is BS?
Here’s hoping we can expose all nasty little trolls:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2008/07/31/lawyers-to-name-defendants-in-autoadmit-case/
JustTruth101 on November 10, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Nice. The court just validated every asshole that doesn’t have the guts to stand by their statements and resorts to the – hey just kidding defense.
aikidoka on November 10, 2009 at 11:15 PM
This isn’t a win for free speech, its a win for freedom to defame and attack people.
As we know many jobs use the internet to check on people they may hire, so if sites like this were made about someone else, whats to say this wouldn’t hurt those people?
Granted I assume this is more a comment on how the right can be attacked over and over with no one ever taking a fall. If the NYT can attack people and months later issue a retraction no one sees I guess anyone on the internet can do the same.
Rbastid on November 10, 2009 at 11:19 PM
World Internet Property Organization (WIPO) has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, slander or libel. The author is an idiot.
jdkchem on November 11, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Can this be appealed? Even if someone is a public figure it seems that always having to rebut charges of felonies is asking too much even of a public figure.
It does seem to me that even public figures should have some say over the use of their own name in connection with crimes. Especially if someone is making money with it. At very least the money made should go to Beck.
This is really wrong. Can you imagine if it was you?
petunia on November 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM
You know what? Conservatives can’t even think of horrible names for websites like “progressives” can. Not one site recommendation is half as nasty as the evilness that hatches in leftie brains. It must really hurt to think like that.
petunia on November 11, 2009 at 1:33 AM
OH and Judge Napolitano said Beck hit some kind of record for the number of books he has on the best seller lists… I like it’s time I bought a couple of Beck books.
I hope he stays on top a long long time. I hope it is Beck that finally exposes Obama and his communist cabal and brings them down.
This just makes me mad.
petunia on November 11, 2009 at 1:35 AM
The domain name ObamaisaKenyanUsurper.com is available and you could have a site up in about an hour. If some other wise guy hasn’t beat ya to it. I really don’t think the Obama administration is going to come after you about a web address, unless it’s threatening.
Basically, anybody can register any domain. Country codes and top level domains such as (.mil, .edu & .gov) are restricted to members or member groups within those institutions. Otherwise if your desired character-string is available and you can pay for it, you may register the domain.
Problems arise when trademark owners bring action against domain owners to protect their trade or service mark. A cease and desist letter is often all it takes for a trademark owner to get results. But some domain owners have legitimate cause for ownership and are willing to prove it.
IMO past rulings do not give a strong indication as to how any one court will rule on any one case. IP law is very expensive and ongoing costs are often a determining factor in the outcome.
It’s costly to protect one’s brand identity. But, trademark owners must protect their brand vigorously. I’m sure Beck’s legal team did what they could.
I don’t think the outcome is quite so political. I think if Beck could have easily won if he was dealing with a less-savvy agitator. It’s got to be an infinitesimally small number of people who would have backed him down.
The Race Card on November 11, 2009 at 5:47 AM
I thought that was what ‘hate’ crimes were for. Everyone is equal – it’s just some are more equal than others.
gwelf on November 11, 2009 at 8:13 AM
Fight back in kind. What goes around, comes around.
BottomLine5 on November 11, 2009 at 8:20 AM
At least somebody managed to actually look at the article.
Mediaite is almost uniformly snarky, stupid, and wrong. But they’re Allah’s buds, so he continues to link to them.
notropis on November 11, 2009 at 8:55 AM
For the actual text, see here.
Note that this is not a court decision, it is the decision of a “panel” consisting of a single person, who issues a very confused ruling. On the one hand, the arbitrator says, of the content of the parody site:
That is, he correctly notes that he may only rule on the domain name, not the content. But in the next paragraph, he turns around and denies the complainant’s (Beck’s) argument that the domain name must be judged “standing alone,” and proceeds to say that since, within the content (which is supposed to be beyond his scope of judgement), one can see that the domain name does not refer to an actual event, but rather a parody, that therefore the domain name is protected.
So we have a one-man panel issuing a self-contradictory ruling that Beck could easily appeal to an actual court of law, and the jokers at Mediaite are treating it like some sort of Supreme Court Free Speech ruling.
notropis on November 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM
HEARTACHE!!!
Constant Parrhesia on November 11, 2009 at 9:33 AM