Image: YouTube

Image: YouTube

Back in fall 2006, before Glenn Beck was the household name he is today, he tried out a rhetorical tactic he’s now known for. He famously asked Rep. Keith Ellison, because the freshman legislator is Muslim, to “prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.” Critics of Beck have commemorated the Fox host’s propensity for challenging those he opposes to prove a negative (”prove you didn’t do _____”) in a satirical website, “Did Glenn Beck Kill and Rape a Young Girl in 1990?” Now, in a case that revisits the Ellison story, Beck is appealing to the international body that assigns internet domain names to shut the site down.

As Ed Brayton (who writes for our sister site in Michigan) reports on his blog, Beck lodged a complaint (pdf) with the World Intellectual Property Organization charging that the satirical site’s domain name should be canceled because it is “plainly libelous, patently false, not authorized by Mercury or Beck, and is likely to cause confusion for consumers.”

But Brayton asks:

“Why would he do that rather than file, say, a libel suit? Because he knows he would lose a libel suit. He is a public figure and the site is clearly satirical. …[I]t is virtually impossible to win such a suit.”

In his response to the complaint (pdf), Marc Randazza, the attorney representing site owner Isaac Eiland-Hall, states that the WIPO’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy isn’t to be used for defamation cases and that the site is clearly political satire, can’t be confused as an official Beck site and seeks no profit from its communication. Further, he gives the lineage of the site’s premise:

The meme is a parody of from [sic] Glenn Beck’s own argumentation style mated with a  Gilbert Gottfried routine performed during the Comedy Central Roast of  “comedian” Bob Saget.  During Gottfried’s speech, he kept repeating (in his trademark nasally voice) that there were rumors that Bob Saget had  raped and killed a girl in 1990…

…The humor equation is simple: (Outrageous Accusation) + (Celebrity) + (Question Why the Celebrity Does Not Deny the Accusation) = (Confirmation of the Falsity of the Accusation + Laughter)

Then, the attorney references Beck’s Ellison interview, concluding, “Quite simply, Beck’s shtick is simply a cheap imitation of Gilbert Gottfried, sans the humor.”

Randazza’s response brief is entertainingly written, contextualizing the site as being akin to internet memes like “Mr. Spock Ate My Balls” and “ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US,” and challenging Beck’s assertion that the satirical site’s name might confuse Beck fans:

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion.  We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent’s website wondering “where did all the race baiting content go?”  We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent’s website shut down.  He wants it shut down because Respondent’s website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck’s very rhetorical style.  Beck’s skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down.  Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team.  Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful.  See, e.g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).  Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent’s constitutional rights.