Sunday, October 4, 2009

Massachusetts-based First Amendment rights lawyer Marc Randazza is defending a controversial parody website which satirizes American political commentator Glenn Beck. The website was created in September by a man from Florida named Isaac Eiland-Hall, and it asserts Beck uses questionable tactics “to spread lies and misinformation”.

The website created by Eiland-Hall is located at the domain name “www.GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com”. Its premise is derived from a joke statement made by Gilbert Gottfried about fellow comedian Bob Saget. The joke was first applied to Beck on the Internet discussion community Fark. It then became popular on Internet social media sites including Reddit and Digg, and was the subject of a Google bomb, a technique where individuals link phrases in order to artificially change Google search results.

Eiland-Hall saw the discussion on Fark, and created a website about it. The website asserts it does not believe the rumors to be true, and states: “But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation.” In an interview with Ars Technica, he said the website was “using Beck’s tactics against him”. The website was created on September 1, and by September 3 attorneys for Beck’s company Mercury Radio Arts took action. Beck’s lawyers sent letters to the domain name registrar where they referred to the domain name itself as “defamatory”, but they failed to get the site removed.

Beck filed a formal complaint with the Switzerland-based agency of the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization. Beck alleged that the website’s usage is libelous, bad faith, and could befuddle potential consumers. Beck’s complaint was filed under the process called the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The policy allows trademark owners to begin an administrative action by complaining that a certain domain registration is in “bad faith”. A lawyer for Beck declined to provide a comment to the Boston Herald, however a source told the newspaper that Beck’s complaint with the site is primarily a “trademark issue”.

Randazza established an attorney-client relationship with Eiland-Hall after his client received threatening letters from attorneys representing Beck. He then sent an email to Beck’s attorneys, and pointed out inconsistencies between their client’s recent actions and his prior public statements in support of the First Amendment. Randazza wrote a reply to the World Intellectual Property Organization, and contends that the website is “protected political speech”, because it is “satirical political humor”. Randazza stated that “Even an imbecile would look at this Web site and know that it’s a parody.” In his legal brief, Randazza compared the website to other Internet memes, such as “All your base are belong to us” and video parodies of the German film Downfall.

“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,” wrote Randazza in the brief. The brief also commented on Beck’s style of reporting, and pointed out a controversial statement made by Beck when he interviewed a Muslim member of the United States Congress. Beck said to Representative Keith Ellison: “I like Muslims, I’ve been to mosques. … 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.” According to the Citizen Media Law Project, the website’s joke premise takes advantage of “a perceived similarity between Beck’s rhetorical style and the Gottfried routine”.

Public interest attorney Paul Levy told Ars Technica that if a statement in a website’s domain name were both false and “stated with actual malice”, it is possible it could be considered defamatory. The First Post reported that Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Corynne McSherry gave an analysis asserting that though the domain name of the website is “pretty dramatic”, it constituted “pure political criticism and there’s nothing wrong with that”. McSherry and Levy both agreed that the action of Beck to take the matter to the World Intellectual Property Organization was probably a tactic to determine the identity of the website’s owner.

Andy Carvin of National Public Radio wrote that Randazza’s legal brief was amusing, commenting: “It’s not often that I would recommend reading a World Intellectual Property Organization legal brief for its entertainment value, but today is going to be an exception.” Nate Anderson of Ars Technica commented “In any event, the WIPO battle promises to be entertaining, and there’s even a bit of serious purpose mixed in with the frivolity. Just how far can WIPO go in using its domain dispute system to address Internet spats?”. Domain Name Wire wrote that “…when someone who has created a bitingly satirical web site works with his lawyer to put pen to the paper, the end result can be quite amusing.”

Writing for Adweek, Eriq Gardner pointed out the comparison made by Randazza’s legal brief between the website’s parody nature itself and the statement made by Beck to Congressman Ellison, noting: “this case also makes a political point”. Jack Bremer wrote in The First Post that the attempts by Beck’s lawyers to argue that the website’s domain name is itself defamatory “looks like a first in cyber law”. Rick Sawyer of Bostonist characterized Randazza’s legal brief as “Hillarious!”, and called the attorney “among the North Shore’s most hilarious legal writers”.

The FOX News-critical site FoxNewsBoycott.com likened the legal conflict between Beck and the site to the Streisand effect, a phenomenon where an individual’s attempt to censor material on the Internet in turn proves to make the material itself more public. “Glenn Beck is experiencing the Streisand Effect first hand,” wrote FoxNewsBoycott.com. John Cook of Gawker.com also compared Beck’s actions to the Streisand effect: “Now Glenn Beck’s trying to shut down their web site, ensuring that people will write about it.” Jeffrey Weiss of Politics Daily wrote that by taking legal action, Beck “did the one thing guaranteed to garner the greatest amount of publicity for the site”. Techdirt described Beck’s legal action as “not particularly smart”, and noted: “Beck would have been better off just ignoring it. Instead, in legitimizing it by trying to take it down, many more people become aware of the meme — and may start calling attention to situations where Beck (and others) make use of such tactics.” The blog Hot Air noted the issue could gain attention if it becomes a test case for the First Amendment: “If this becomes a First Amendment test case, the smear’s going to be covered far and wide…”

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Canadian TD Financial Group has come to a deal with the regional U.S. bank, Hudson United Bancorp, to buy Hudson for US$1.9 billion. The new addition will be folding into itsMaine-based TD Banknorth, which is 51% owned by TD Financial. The acquisition will bring in 204 new branches and increase TD’s footprint to New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. In total this will give TD 590 branches, 751 banking machines and more than US$26-billion in deposits across eight northeastern states.

Hudson specialises in commercial real estate, consumer and credit card loans to individuals and businesses. The bank also had $8.85 billion US in assets at the end of it’s first quarter, on March 31. The company’s shares had been dropping in the course of the past year because of allegations of money-laundering violations and after an earnings warning, making it a good steal for TD. The acquisition will greatly increased TD’s influence in America.

This continues the recent trend for Canadian banks expanding into the U.S. where regulation on bank mergers is less strict than in their home country.

“This transaction delivers on our shared vision for growth and marks a significant milestone in TD Banknorth’s expansion strategy,” TD Bank CEO and president Ed Clark said in a statement.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

As Tom DeLay’s (Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas), alleged ethical lapses began to dominate American political news stories and the Sunday talk shows, have led some Republican members of the Majority Leader’s own party to question the reasoning for his refusal to account for his actions or resign.

Last year, in a glimpse of problems yet to surface, the Republican head of the U.S. House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or “House Ethics Committee”, presided over three admonitions that included offering to endorse the candidacy of a political lawmaker’s son in exchange for votes on legislation. The ethics complaints were originally filed by Democratic Rep. Chris Bell of Texas on June 15, 2004, and began to heat up in the months prior to last year’s elections.

A Texas grand jury is taking a hard look at Delay’s fund raising practices, and has already indicted three of his close associates. Last week the Washington Post reported that Mr. DeLay took a trip to Moscow in 1997, financed by lobbyists of the Russian Government.

Delay’s representative, Dan Allen, told reporters “Congressman DeLay’s effective leadership to build and strengthen the House majority is exactly the reason he is being targeted by liberal groups funded by George Soros.”

But Christopher Shays, a Republican from Connecticut, a Republican moderate, told the Associated Press that DeLay’s “conduct is hurting the Republican Party” and “hurting any Republican who is up for re-election [in 2006].”

The news agency reported that DeLay would look forward to meeting the charges with the ethics committee in a sit-down and blamed all of his problems on House Democrats.

Senator Chris Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, advised his Republican colleagues strongly to “Be careful about how closely you embrace Mr. DeLay, as long as he’s there, he’s going to become a pretty good target.” His remarks were nationally televised on ABC TV.

Those Republicans working with the Majority Leader said his ethics are only a problem to Democrats trying to regain power in the House. But the Ethics Committee’s membership is equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.

Other Republicans are starting to get jittery about their reelection hopes if DeLay is allowed to retain power.

“Tom’s conduct is hurting the Republican Party, is hurting this Republican majority and it is hurting any Republican who is up for re-election,” Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., told the Associated Press after making similar comments at community meetings in his home district this weekend.

He told reporters he thinks DeLay should step down.

The third-ranking Republican in the Senate, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, said DeLay needs to “clear the air.” But he thinks everything done by DeLay was “according to the law.”

“I think he has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves,” he said on ABC’s This Week, a Sunday political talk program. “Now you may not like some of the things he’s done, that’s for the people of his district to decide, whether they want to approve that kind of behavior.”

Santorum faces reelection in 2006.

DeLay is under investigation by the Travis County (Texas) district attorney, Democrat Ronnie Earle, who has already indicted three members of DeLay’s organization, Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (TRMPAC), on charges of money laundering and accepting illegal campaign contributions.

DeLay and his associates are alleged to have created a front group to launder money obtained through this illegal method. The District attorney believes he is enforcing the law enacted by the Texas lawmakers.

DeLay and his supporters contended that this investigation and the indictments were politically motivated maneuvers by the Democratic Travis County, Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earle. Earle has been characterized as a controversial and colorful political figure with a history of pursuing unconventional indictments against elected officials including Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. However, his record shows that he has indicted more Democrats than Republicans.

Federal investigators are probing a lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, another DeLay associate, for bilking millions of dollars from Native American casino operators for promises of congressional action to support their businesses. Abramoff and others may have underwritten overseas travel for the Majority Leader, which is a violation of law.

DeLay has taken on the nation’s independent judiciary, particularly those who disagreed with him on the reinsertion of the feeding tube for Terri Schiavo, a brain damaged Florida woman who died on March 31. Reports that he pulled the life support from his own father, when he was fatally injured in the 1980’s, didn’t deter him.

“The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,” DeLay said of the judges.

Asked what his associates think of DeLay’s latest slew of bad news, spokesman Dan Allen replied, “Members were very supportive through the week last week and going into the weekend.”

The Bush administration said that DeLay has not become the political liability that Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, became in 2002.

Both Chris Shays and Joel Hefley, a Republican from Colorado, the past chairman of the House ethics committee who sanctioned DeLay three times, have signed a resolution, crafted by Democrats, that would end some of the rules changes that their own party pushed through to help DeLay only three months ago. DeLay voted for the changes to cover his actions as well.

Hefley said “A lot of folks mention quietly that they are concerned about it. On the other hand, you have a lot of members standing up and pledging their undying support for Mr. DeLay,”

Eleven years after the Republicans swept power in the Congress from the Democrats, they seem more intent on protecting DeLay than keeping the “Contract with America,” according to critics. They say “that is the corrupting influence of power.”

DeWayne Wickham of USA Today asks, “How will voters respond to this breach of the Contract?” The next federal elections will take place in November of 2006.