Comics I Don’t Understand

GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com

Cidu Bill on Oct 2nd 2009

An NPR article on the controversy

The web site itself (NSFW)

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

Filed in Bill Bickel, Glenn Beck, Internet, NPR, humor, polls, satire | 41 responses so far

41 Responses to “GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com”

JohnD Oct 2nd 2009 at 10:21 pm 1

Is there proof that he didn’t?
Paperboy Oct 2nd 2009 at 10:36 pm 2

With “I Saw It With My Own Eyes” as the top criterion for belief, I tend to put “I Read It On The Internet” near, if not at, the bottom.
Rammy M Oct 2nd 2009 at 11:23 pm 3

Epic !!!
Fett101 Oct 3rd 2009 at 12:08 am 4

The poll isn’t working.

Is there really even a question as to if this is legit satire? Beck is just trying to shut them up with a lawsuit. All he’s doing is giving them press though.
Dr. Shrinker Oct 3rd 2009 at 12:27 am 5

Umm…neither the poll nor the link appear to be working.

And I think it’s hilarious. How DO we know he didn’t?
Cidu Bill Oct 3rd 2009 at 12:35 am 6

I fixed the link.

The poll does work — but oddly enough, it doesn’t update in real time. I can see there have been 39 votes since I put this online a couple of hours ago, but the vote count won’t be visible for a few hours.

Polls that work properly on WordPress templates… gotta make do with what’s available, y’know?
The Bad Seed Oct 3rd 2009 at 01:05 am 7

Wow, I feel so guilty - I can’t stop doing my happy dance and squealing with glee long enough to manage to be at all objective about this.
az Oct 3rd 2009 at 01:52 am 8

Since every generation has at least one media hate monger who thrives on stirring discontent I say say let the story roll on.
WhitneyD Oct 3rd 2009 at 02:15 am 9

It’s satire. Plain and simple. Besides - if Beck’s allowed to say whatever the hell he wants and remain on the air even after most of his sponsors have dropped him… I think he’s fair game. (I think my favorite Beck quote that had nothing to do with the president was when he criticized the gov’t for supporting sea turtle conservation around the world- not just turtles that come to the US. He said something about it being useless unless we were arming the turtles with guns, and that mental image never ceases to amuse me)
cydu Oct 3rd 2009 at 04:35 am 10

Completely legitimate, first amendment-protected satire. I’m surprised at the naivete of the website’s creators (and also NPR) if they don’t realize that the exposure benefits Beck, though.
chuckers Oct 3rd 2009 at 04:39 am 11

I think it would be satire if the actual name of the domain included “DID” at the
beginning implying a question.

As it is now, it is being stated like a “fact”

The title of the index page includes it, why not the actual domain name.

However, claiming copyright to your own name is just plain silly.
Steven Oct 3rd 2009 at 05:28 am 12

Satire + Memes = A use for the internet.
The Bad Seed Oct 3rd 2009 at 07:33 am 13

Various celebrities have sued for ownership of web sites with their name, and won. But I just can’t imagine you have a legal right to every single combination using your name. And didn’t Al Franken used Rush’s name in the title of a book, in a negative connotation?
Rasheed Oct 3rd 2009 at 08:14 am 14

and Al was sued. I believe it is still pending.

If your name is “trademarkable” you can have first dibs on just about any domain name containing it, so that would be Glen’s best course of action at the moment. However, as far as the actual content, it seems to be within the letter of first amendment rights. But excluding “did” from the registered url might be considered libel since it does have the ability to “harm” Glen Beck. I think they need to reregister the url to get in the absolute clear.
padraig Oct 3rd 2009 at 09:33 am 15

As long as a “reasonable person” can tell it’s satire, it’s protected speech. And looking at this whole page, including the Britney Guy parody, it’s obvious. And while heavy handed, it’s clearly a response to crap like “Why won’t Obama prove he’s American?”

Not that Fox News and Beck’s lawyers will have any trouble trotting out people who will claim they thought it was real.

They’ll fail anyway. Too frickin’ bad. Sauce for the goose, guys…
Sal Oct 3rd 2009 at 09:50 am 16

Glen Beck is an asshole. Did he Rape and murder a girl? I wouldn’t put it past him.
thwgt Oct 3rd 2009 at 10:28 am 17

Well, to use Fox’s own standard for “reporting”, I guess this must be legit since “some people are saying” it might be true. (thanks, Sal)
Karen Oct 3rd 2009 at 10:43 am 18

If a well-known liberal commentator’s name was used in the same context, there would be screaming and wailing from the liberal left.

Just sayin’.
Frank the curmudgeon Oct 3rd 2009 at 11:32 am 19

Obviously it is RACIST!
Winter Wallaby Oct 3rd 2009 at 12:20 pm 20

As long as a “reasonable person” can tell it’s satire, it’s protected speech.

It’s obvious that it’s satire if you actually read the site, but a “reasonable person’ might just glance at the url, or take a quick glance at the discussion board, and not realize that it’s satire. As much as I dislike Glenn Beck, and recognize that this website is just emulating him, I think this is probably libelous.
Less reality, more fantasy, no baby blues Oct 3rd 2009 at 01:26 pm 21

I love this satire. Republicans have slandered Obama and all the other Democrats in far worse ways, especially since Obama was nominated, and I enjoy seeing some reciprocation.
Cidu Bill Oct 3rd 2009 at 01:51 pm 22

To be fair, JohnD, as much proof as there is that you didn’t.
Mark M Oct 3rd 2009 at 03:42 pm 23

Calling it satire doesn’t make it right. There is nothing even remotely humorous about it. Unless you happen to find rape and murder of a young girl funny.
Izzy Oct 3rd 2009 at 03:51 pm 24

What’s your opinion on the CIDU Bill? You probably have more expertise on the subject than anyone on here.
dasein668 Oct 3rd 2009 at 04:27 pm 25

Mark M: Satire and humor are not equivalent. Much satire is humorous, but it is not a requirement. Satire can be wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.
Mark M Oct 3rd 2009 at 04:51 pm 26

dasein668, then I guess it’s bad satire. And if it’s not humorous, then how is it entertaining? Just slandering someone you don’t like makes it a good read?
Fett101 Oct 3rd 2009 at 06:52 pm 27

Mark M has never heard of pedobear?

It’s entertaining because Glenn Beck uses the same fallacy, Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, in his own arguments. I find it very humorous and entertaining but it’s seemingly gone over your head.
Mark M Oct 3rd 2009 at 09:28 pm 28

Fett101, I don’t give a crap because I don’t listen to Glenn Beck, so it doesn’t matter what elitist latin BS you claim he uses for his own arguments. Fact is you find a site that calls him a rapist and murderer funny because you don’t like him. I find it offensive, so take your pedobear and stick it!
Lindsey ^_^ Oct 3rd 2009 at 10:55 pm 29

I can’t stand Glenn Beck, but I think this is in poor taste. I really don’t think the rape and murder of a girl is something to be joked about, and I really can’t find it funny no matter who is being mocked using it. But maybe that’s just me. And I’ve never bought into the argument that, “They did it first, so two wrongs make a right!!!” People criticize Beck for acting like an ignorant jackass, but then they do the same thing back to him and laugh about how funny it is while claiming he did it first. I thought the point was to show that his methods were wrong, so why follow them? Doesn’t make sense to me.
David N Oct 3rd 2009 at 11:49 pm 30

Al Franken was sued by Fox News for using the incredibly unique phrase “Fair and Balanced” in one of his book titles from 2003. That lawsuit was tossed, for the same reason Rush gets away with so much: it’s called satire people.

Glenn Beck has sown, and is now reaping the wind. But its understandable why the right wingers are so upset, it detracts them from their own non-stop personal attacks. How unfair! Funny how fast they run to government to solve their problems …

But it’s all moot anyway, since Mark M has ordered everyone out of the pool. He doesn’t like it, so everyone should stop. I shall not hold my breath awaiting for reciprocity.
Derek Oct 4th 2009 at 06:59 am 31

Look, there’s no real evidence that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I think he probably didn’t. But why doesn’t he answer his accusers instead of trying to silence them with lawsuits? It’s almost like he has something to hide. Also, I don’t necessarily believe claims that he masturbates while looking at pictures of Jesus and George Bush.
Powers Oct 4th 2009 at 08:42 am 32

Naming logical fallacies is “elitist Latin BS”? That kind of argument is just… What’s the opposite of “elitist”?
David A. Rooney Oct 4th 2009 at 12:04 pm 33

Powers - isn’t the opposite of elitist, egalitarian? Doesn’t fit somehow.
Wendy Oct 4th 2009 at 02:53 pm 34

I admit I have very little knowledge about this topic. I had never heard of Glen Beck before this, and I haven’t looked at the website. However, even if the site is clearly satire and protected by the first amendment (which it probably is), I don’t think having a site with a URL like that is right. I know that when I Google things, I place a lot of weight for my choices on the URL of the sites listed. If I was just finding out about a person, and a site like that was one of the top 5 sites that came up, I’d be mighty disturbed. However, like Rasheed and chuckers said, if the URL had “did” at the beginning, to make it a question, it would be more likely to be seen as satire, and less as libel.
Powers Oct 5th 2009 at 08:00 am 35

David — I suppose so. But where “elitist” means “believing oneself to be elite and therefore better than the non-elite”, I’m looking for a word that means “believing oneself to be humble and not concerned with trivial matters, and therefore better than the intelligentsia”.
FlyingFish Oct 5th 2009 at 12:02 pm 36

There’s a federal trademark case in the fourth circuit (PETA v. Doughney) that declares, in essence, you have to consider any content in the URL independently from any content on the page itself. What this means is that the domain name itself could be libel — even if it’s obviously parody once you click, the fact that it isn’t obvious before you click creates sufficient confusion for a suit. (What if the person doesn’t click? Then the only information they have is that domain name.) Libel is state law, not federal, so the case isn’t binding, but it could easily be applied. (Of course, then Beck still has to convince a jury.)

Trademark suit isn’t likely to go anywhere, though. The domain name is pretty obviously what’s called “nominative use” — used simply to identify the trademarked item in a sentence, with no attempt to claim endorsement by the trademark owner — which is allowed. (I can write “Coca-Cola” all I want in a news article about it, even though “Coca-Cola” is trademarked, because there’s no other way to refer to it and I need to refer to it to write the article. Same principle.)
Less reality, more fantasy, no baby blues Oct 5th 2009 at 02:09 pm 37

Jokes are supposed to be offensive. Lighthearted, inoffensive humor tends to be dull and repetitive. I would much rather laugh at a Holocaust joke or the Truly Tasteless Jokes series than The Family Circus, Friends or a C.B.S. shitcom. Most great comedians defy social boundaries, and are not afraid to offend their audiences: George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Andy Kaufman, Monty Python, and many others.
Frank the curmudgeon Oct 5th 2009 at 08:44 pm 38

This Beck seems akin to THE REALIST pushing the storey about LBJ copulating with the bullet hole in JFK. I was not too fond of either but I was disgusted by it. How did Larry Flynt make out with his being sued by someone (Fairwell?) for superimposing his picture on a buttox/rectum?
I sometimes wonder whether we should have outlawed challenging someone to a duel.
Frank the curmudgeon Oct 5th 2009 at 08:46 pm 39

Should read : This Beack URL…
Scott Oct 6th 2009 at 02:27 am 40

To make it very clear to Mark M - this stairic rumor isn’t being thread just because people dislike Glenn Beck, but because it is using exactly the same tactics as the birthers are doing: ignore all evidence to the contrary and insist that the target of the rumor drop everything and respond. It is kind of a teaching tool about why the burden of proof must be on the accuser. This is something that gets ignored by the cretins at Fox News, and now it is biting them. The outlandishness of the accusation (and I haven’t seen anyone try to make up a name or a story to go with it) makes it effective satire.
anaceofkidneys Oct 7th 2009 at 06:06 pm 41

Even if I liked Glenn Beck I wouldn’t see this as libel, since no one is saying he DID rape and murder a young girl; they’re just asking him to prove he didn’t. They’re on his side in this issue; they believe him. They just want *proof*. That’s all.