November 10, 2009 8 Comments
Court decides Beck can’t ‘rape and kill’ domain name
The alleged victim of a rape and murder in 1990 can now breathe a sigh of relief knowing those seeking justice on her behalf will not be silenced by the likes of Glenn Beck any time soon. That’s because the FoxNews show host, and rumored suspect, Glenn Beck lost his lawsuit against Isaac Eiland-Hall over the domain name of his site – glennbeckrapedand murderedayounggirlin1990.com. This decision has made it safe again to ask the question at the heart of the controversy- Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a woman in 1990? And, if he didn’t why hasn’t he denied the allegations?
Due to Beck’s silence on the issue, concerned Americans are no closer to answering the question today than when the story broke back in the beginning of September. The site in question was created almost immediately after news of Beck’s possible involvement in the 1990 rape became public. The site has become the headquarters for concerned citizens devoted to discovering the truth behind the vicious rumor that Glenn Beck raped and killed a woman in 1990. Although Beck has not publicly addressed the allegations, he clearly wants these rumors to go away as evidenced by his botched attempted cover up, which was debunked right here on UnreasonablySafe.com.
The decision is a significant win for not only vaginal rights advocates, but also for freedom of speech lovers too. Because had the ruling gone in Beck’s favor, it would’ve surely discouraged the public from investigating more unsolved 1990 Glenn Beck rape and murder cases. Although, the court remained silent on the actual rumor itself, its ruling clearly leaves the door wide open for further questioning of Beck’s supposed innocence. Some have even suggested that based on Swiss customs, the court’s silence actually means that it is interested in hearing Beck’s side of the story and he should promptly confirm or deny the allegations in a very detailed affidavit. Others were less sympathetic, one anonymous observer of the Beck case said, “regardless whether WIPO is in Switzerland or not- the fact is we let him walk out of that courtroom without handcuffs. I mean and we had him in our midst and we let him walk right out the front door- we should have busted him for rape and murder and asked questions last. It’s likely that the poor woman in 1990 would have wanted it that way- because I’m pretty sure he didn’t ask for permission before he raped her and killed her.”
Surprisingly, Beck’s supporters have joined his detractors in openly criticizing him and his lawsuit for being deceptively hypocritical. Many cite his characterization of the freedom of speech as, “our most precious right” and people’s ability to speak out as “the supposed watchdog of our Republic.” Beck seems to think the First Amendment only applies when he’s the one hurling offensive insults and allegations, and not when he becomes the target of allegations. Because, while Beck was claiming his freedom of speech protected his brand of incendiary rhetoric from White House criticism of FoxNews, he was simultaneously trying to prevent others from exercising their right to speak out against him. Read more of this post