DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com

zimok

zimok

Click, Whirr.
Oct 27, 2008
2,391
99
0
Canada... eh!
Slashdot Link

World Intellectual Property Organization arbitration panelist Frederick Abbott ruled Friday that the less-than-flattering domain name was protected by fair use principles because the URL, when combined with the site's content, constitutes protected speech.
Click to expand...

Nice to know we can still pull off shit like this in todays crazy corporate world. I can't help but wonder who this wouldn't of worked with.
 


zimok said:
Slashdot Link



Nice to know we can still pull off shit like this in todays crazy corporate world. I can't help but wonder who this wouldn't of worked with.
Click to expand...
It's not the first time an unflattering domain has survived because of free speech, similar to cases of CompanySucks.com. One of the only satire cases I can think of where a defendant lost was in PETA.org (People Eating Tasty Animals), but that was using the TM straight up.
 
Lpdesigner said:
Did Glenn Beck really rape and murder a young girl in 1990?
Click to expand...

For those that have problems clicking a link (it's understable as wickedfire has given people linkclick phobia in recent years)

CuteSteveJobs writes "Glenn Beck fought the law and the law won. Parody website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com attacked Beck using the same straw man arguments Beck himself is famous for: '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 ... Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?' Beck didn't see the humour and tried to have the site shut down. He sued the creator on the grounds the site 'violated his name as a trademark.' But in a sudden outbreak of common sense, WIPO rejected Beck's complaint finding the site 'can be said to be making a political statement,' which is a 'legitimate non-commercial use' of Beck's name. But after winning, the owner voluntarily handed Beck the domain anyway. Still, it's comforting to know that satire — the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear — is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs."
Click to expand...
 
Edit for hellblazer: I <\edit> tried to ignore your first comment, but you just couldn't help yourself could you? Stop being such a rightwing douchebag and stfu for change

hellblazer said:
Is liberalism a mental disorder? Is Barack Obama psychotic?
Click to expand...
 
medicalhumor said:
we all tried to ignore your first comment, but you just couldn't help yourself could you? Stop being such a rightwing douchebag and stfu for change
Click to expand...

"We"? Lol can you even think for yourself? Suddenly the righteous indignation emerges when it's targeted at one of your own?

What a fucking hypocrite.
 
Well, at least we have free speech laws that protect the rights of nuts to make whatever crazy satirical websites/statements.
 
hellblazer said:
Is liberalism a mental disorder? Is Barack Obama psychotic?
Click to expand...

Hellblazer... I can't help but think that:

1) You have too much time.
2) You are a human right wing news aggregator who's main activity in life is to scour the interwebz for anti-liberal propaganda to post here on wickedfire.:usa: Because: Please see #1
 
Traska said:
Hellblazer... I can't help but think that:

1) You have too much time.
2) You are a human right wing news aggregator who's main activity in life is to scour the interwebz for anti-liberal propaganda to post here on wickedfire.:usa: Because: Please see #1
Click to expand...

Yet another example of somebody objecting to the same 'satire' directed at one of their own. However, there's no objection when that same 'satire' is directed at an ideological opponent.

It's the same for most of the libs here. They celebrate 'satire' when used to smear a political opponent, yet object strenuously when that same 'satire' is flipped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom