Glenn Beck and international law (and why I love Marc Randazza)

There exists a particularly funny web site that mocks the investigative style of Fox News personality Glenn Beck. The web site is http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/. It satirizes the whole tactic of making some frivolous speculation and then saying that they were only asking questions - a technique regularly employed by Beck. It's positively abominable behavior for anybody considering themselves a journalist, but hey, it's Fox News.

Anyway, Beck has filed a grievance with WIPO (the World Internet Property Organization) that seeks to strip the URL from its owner, thus silencing the site. Pure gold. But there's an important question to ask here: why did Beck file his complaint with an international body rather than with the courts here in the good ol', god-blessed, US of A? The web site's attorney, Mike Randazza, puts forth a hypothesis in his response brief, along with batting down the allegation that the site was set up to confuse fans of Beck into thinking that Beck was tied to the site somehow:

There is no indication that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to confuse anyone searching for Mr. Beck's own website, nor that anyone was unintentionally confused - even initially. Only an abject imbecile could believe that the domain name would have any connection to the Complainant.

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. Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent's constitutional rights.

Sofa king, beautiful.

He also provides comparisons from Beck and from the web site in order to highlight the satire. First, from Beck:

No offense and I know Muslims, I like Muslims, I've been to mosques, I really don't think Islam is a religion of evil. I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying let's cut and run. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview because what I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy. But that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

Then, from the web site:

Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations? We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 -- in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?

But don't worry - this gets better.

Yesterday Randazza emailed Ed Brayton, alerting him to another brief he had filed. It contains a quote from Beck that Beck must have just forgotten about:

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 the irony begins to reach neck-level. Randazza also has another spectacular Beck quote, in which Beck is explaining why he called Harold Koh, the Dean of the Yale Law School, a "threat to American Democracy" for his position on transnational law. Beck said:

[Koh] 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.

Randazza provides one last Beck quote just for good measure:

Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead.

A lot of people would just be tempted to leave it there, but Mr. Ranazza is apparently no ordinary lawyer. He concludes his recent brief with the following request:

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.

I would like to become a lawyer, but I don't think I could ever be this good.