Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I thought Mark Randazza, the attorney for the owner of the "Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?" website, made a great argument with his initial response to Beck's attempts to censor the website through an international tribunal. But he emailed me today with a link to another filing (PDF) he made that is pure genius. He begins by quoting Beck criticizing liberals for trying to have legal issues removed from American jurisdiction and taken to the international level:
Let me tell you something. When you can't win with the people, you bump it up to the courts. When you can't win with the courts, you bump it up to the international level.
And by golly, that's exactly what Beck did. Randazza then notes that the UDRP, the process by which such complaints are resolved, does sometimes "render decisions that make First Amendment champions cringe" but that are in line with the laws of other nations. He then quotes Beck criticizing Harold Koh by arguing that he "wants to subordinate the American Constitution to foreign and international rules. We see that in his attack on First Amendment free speech principles, which he finds opprobrious."
And quotes Beck declaring, "Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead." So in light of this, Randazza has come up with a brilliant stipulation that will, he's certain, be agreeable to Beck: Both sides should agree that the standard for judgment in the case under the UDRP should be the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
After all, both the plaintiff and defendant are American citizens. And the last thing Beck would ever want is to subject American citizens to transnational law, right?
I hate to presume anything about anyone, but I presume that Mr. Beck will agree to this stipulation. It would be an interesting day indeed if Mr. Beck preferred to risk that a panelist would apply French law to a case between two Americans over a matter of public discourse...I am certain that neither party wishes to see First Amendment rights subordinated to international trademark principles, thus unwittingly proving Mr. Beck's point. Lest this case become an example of international law causing damage to the constitutional rights that both of our clients hold dear, I respectfully request that your client agree to stipulate to the application of American constitutional law to this case.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
Politics
Comments
I hope the Daily Show picks this story up. I'm sure Jon Stewart would have a ball with this.
Posted by: Wes | October 6, 2009 9:40 AM
I don't know. I think this is a gray area. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to have a web site. I searched the whole document for URL and "domain name server" and didn't get a single hit.
Posted by: Skip | October 6, 2009 9:50 AM
Now they've done it. Such a perfect skewering will force Beck to quietly drop the whole thing.
I would wager we won't hear much more about this, but I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Abstruse | October 6, 2009 9:52 AM
Okay Skip, I'm not biting on this thread. URL indeed.
It is absolutely fabulous that Beck supplies his own hypocrisy quotes for the defense to use against him. Damned nice of him. Where's that Vick's when you need it?
Posted by: MikeMa | October 6, 2009 9:58 AM
Hey, Skip, nowhere does the document mention telephones, blogs, or two cans tied together with a string, either; but free speech principles under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution remain the same regardless of the speaker's choice of medium.
You might want to read that sucker again.
Posted by: threetorches | October 6, 2009 9:58 AM
If the Washington Independent did a story on this you might get at least MSNBC covering it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 6, 2009 10:05 AM
No doubt a thorough search of Beck's collected output would provide lawyers with just about any argument they needed on almost any side of any given issue - but once the gavel came down, the research team would require extensive and prolonged therapy, plus lifetime protection from all Murdoch media.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 6, 2009 10:20 AM
threetorches, #5: Hey, Skip, nowhere does the document mention telephones, blogs, or two cans tied together with a string, either....
Come to think of it, it doesn't mention pen, ink, or paper either. Maybe Skip thinks "freedom of the press" means everyone has the right to make apple cider?
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 6, 2009 10:24 AM
I'd just like to say: My lawyer is a genius.
Of course, anyone who reads the response and stipulation letter will realize this instantly. :D
Posted by: Name Withheld | October 6, 2009 10:36 AM
Skip: Try Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7. Mr. Beck is claiming an infringement to his Copyright. The Interstate Commerce Clause and the Impairment to Contracts Clauses might also be implicated.
When you were searching the document, did the word, "property" ever occur? A web domain is property. Let me know if I can be of further service.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 6, 2009 10:52 AM
I'm betting skip is parody/Poe.
Posted by: eNeMeE | October 6, 2009 11:06 AM
I hear WalMart is having a sale on satire detectors this week.
Posted by: Pieter B | October 6, 2009 11:09 AM
Y'all must know that "Skip" fella from before, cuz I just though he was having a (faint, faulty) go at "irony."
Posted by: Woody | October 6, 2009 11:10 AM
Maybe Skip thinks "freedom of the press" means everyone has the right to make apple cider?
I COULD'VE SWORN I ADVISED A COUPLE FOLKS TO TURN UP THOSE SARCASM DETECTORS ON SKIP'S POSTS YESTERDAY, BUT IT MIGHT JUST BE THE RINGING IN MY EARS!!!
"FREEDOM OF THE PRESS" REMINDS ME OF COFFEE!!! TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE BEANS, A FRENCH PRESS IS A *REAL* GOOD IDEA!!! AND PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT ORDERS, UNTIL JANUARY 20, I WAS REQUIRED TO CALL IT A "FREEDOM PRESS"!!!
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | October 6, 2009 11:17 AM
I suspect Skip is joking. Or does Skip have a history (I don't always have time to read the comments).
Posted by: Don | October 6, 2009 11:17 AM
Never underestimate the power of ego over intelligence.
Of course if Beck refuses to so stipulate, I can see a whole host of sites such as http://www.glennbeckhatestheunitedstatesconstitution.org
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | October 6, 2009 11:24 AM
Skip is definitely joking, folks. He's a friend of mine.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 6, 2009 11:27 AM
That's what you get for destroying so many irony meters Ed. They’re a key component of the sarcasm detector. The shortage you’ve created is leading to a wave of literalism and confusion we haven’t seen since the Reagan years.
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 6, 2009 11:33 AM
I don't know. I think this is a gray area. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to have a web site. I searched the whole document for URL and "domain name server" and didn't get a single hit.
If you didn't get this was sarcasm by now, I can't help you. But for anyone who runs across someone who seriously uses this type of argument, the correct answer is: The Ninth Amendment. It's the one that clarifies that the constitution isn't there to limit the rights of the people, and just because a right isn't stated doesn't mean you don't have it.
Posted by: Infophile | October 6, 2009 11:34 AM
Ed wrote:
And he is doing so very effectively. That whole "a search of the constitution reveals nothing" routine is a favourite of a certain type of dingbat.
Posted by: valhar2000 | October 6, 2009 11:36 AM
Skip makes an excellent point. The Constitution also never mentions air or lungs, which is why I've always thought immediate suffocation would be an excellent way to deal with suspected criminals or the poor. Afterall, death isn't really the intent of restricting a person's breathing, merely an ancillary bi-product of it, and there's nothing really unusual about lungs not working right when there's no air available either. I believe a Mr. Swift had similarly clear-headed suggestions about the administration of Ireland some years ago...
Posted by: Julian | October 6, 2009 12:26 PM
Yes, but you see, it's only natural that people would fail to see the humor in Skip's comment, because it doesn't say anything in the constitution about the right to bear sarcasm detectors either (a well-regulated irony meter being necessary to the hilarity of a free State).
Posted by: James Sweet | October 6, 2009 12:51 PM
With all due apologies to those who answered Skip as though he were serious, you made my brain hurt. You also made me need a drink. The (indisputable) fact that such discourse seems like it could be serious just makes me very sad. Mr. Poe, if I ever find you I will either buy you a drink or offer you a fight, I am not sure which yet.
Posted by: Chris A | October 6, 2009 2:14 PM
Glenn Beck has also made plenty of jokes about killing people, so it's a wonder how he could be offended by a site that is obviously parody/satire.
Here's a gem from 2005:
"Would you kill someone for that?...I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore...I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure."
More here: http://www.theglennbeckprogram.com/glenn-beck-quotes.php
Posted by: The Glenn Beck Program | October 6, 2009 2:23 PM
I suppose the idea of the FCC requiring warnings before Beck, Hannity & O'Reilly TV broadcasts is old hat but I like this:
"If you are watching this show and have an IQ above broccoli, you have been warned."
Inspiring graphics would be a must...
Posted by: MikeMa | October 6, 2009 2:56 PM
Re @ 24
Mr. Beck appears perfectly oblivious to the fact that Michael Moore's arguments, example, and actions are far more in line with biblical passages quoting Jesus than Mr. Beck's. It's not even close. The fact that Beck gets that wrong is of course no surprise.
While I enjoy considering Mr. Moore's arguments as an interviewer or his movies, one of my chief frustrations with him is that his arguments are far too much in line with Jesus' admonitions, which I find naively utopian to a fault. (I just saw Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story yesterday.)
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 6, 2009 4:12 PM
'Hoisted with his own petard' comes to mind.
Posted by: James Taylor | October 6, 2009 5:52 PM
Beck couldn't find his own petard with both hands, an illustrated guidebook, and the assistance of a pack of highly trained bloodhounds
Posted by: tonyc | October 6, 2009 7:52 PM
Skip: well funny:) (Can't believe some people took you seriously tho, hell in a handbasket etc.)
Posted by: outeast | October 7, 2009 7:25 AM
So you're saying that Glen Beck is a
petard retard?
Posted by: Ma Hoggany | October 7, 2009 7:47 AM
It's Mr. Poe. Mr. Walter Poe.
Posted by: slammer | October 7, 2009 9:18 AM
Thanks Michael Heath @26. I've seen too often the mention of moore followed by knee-jerk condemnation rather than your considered critique of his actual points.
Maybe some of the commenters in this thread;
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/moore_screws_up.php
aren't paid so well since the urn of the year.
Posted by: eddie | October 7, 2009 2:32 PM
Yeah, kudos Michael Heath. I must admit I probably am rather close to the type of person eddie describes as having "knee-jerk condemnation" to Moore, but Michael has articulated it pretty well.
I absolutely loved the first two-third of Bowling for Columbine. It was a smart, funny meditation on the problem of gun violence, without ever falling for the siren song of simple (but inadequate) answers.
Then all of a sudden in the last third of the movie, the tone changes. "No wait, it is the gun companies' fault after all. Down with capitalism! And by the way, Charleton Heston is really old! Yeah!"
I know that is Moore's schtick, and I even understand why people find it entertaining and don't fault them that... but I can't handle it. It would probably piss me off less if the whole movie was stupid stunts, a la Sacha Baron Cohen. The transition from serious-but-funny critique to mindless propaganda-oriented stunts is too jarring for me.
And as a result of that, when I watched SiCKO, I couldn't get into any of it, because I just kept thinking, "In what parts of this is he lying to me?" Bah, oh well..
Posted by: James Sweet | October 7, 2009 2:41 PM
Of course Beck couldn't find his petard? That's a French word! What kind of good, god-fearing American uses French? A goddamned pinko communist Nazi, that's who!
Now if you'll excuse me, I must retreat to consume my beef!
Posted by: Snoof | October 7, 2009 8:37 PM
'Petard' is indeed French:
"I fart in your general direction...." :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 7, 2009 10:15 PM
Apparently, bad habits are very, very hard to break because the other day Beck raped a metaphor and killed a frog on live TV. http://wp.me/sBfFK-beckfrog
The innocent frog met his maker after Beck babbled some nonsense then tossed it into a pot of boiling water for no apparent reason, other than to prove to his critics, once and for all, that he's ...
Posted by: 2sayf | October 8, 2009 1:49 PM
DJ,
I think the usage of petard from which the phrase was borrowed was as an explosive device, but that does fit nicely with the origin.
Posted by: James Taylor | October 9, 2009 3:27 PM
@ Skip #2
That made me chuckle. It reminds me of a jackass I know who has thoroughly studied the Constitution and all the writings of the founding fathers. That's his favorite argument.
Posted by: Owen | December 17, 2009 11:47 AM