Guestblogger Arthur Goldwag is the author of "Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons, The Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Black Helicopters, The New World Order, and many, many more" and other books.
On September 15, 2009, THE LOST SYMBOL came off press. F... More.
A 20-year old Shanghai woman of mixed race has sparked a discussion about race in China. Lou Jing is half black; she was raised by a Chinese mother and speaks and acts like any other Chinese girl. But when the aspiring TV anchor entered an American Idol-like contest and rapped on-stage, she attracte... More.
"When I say there is no water crisis, you must be wondering, 'Is this guy talking to his hat?'" That's how Asit Biswas led off his speech last month at the 2009 Nobel Conference. And--oddly worded idiom aside--he was right. That's exactly what everyone was thinking.
The Conference--really a lectu... More.
Cartoonist Peter Bagge did a funny one-pager about Ayn Rand for the December issue of Reason.
Peter Bagge on Ayn Rand
Previously:Richard Metzger on Ayn Rand - Boing Boing
Young Conservative rappers explain Jesus, Ayn Rand, and ANWR ...
Ayn Rand institute "shocked" by Harvard Medical Sc... More.
And now there's a T-shirt to prove it.
Hiney shirts at CafePress
Previously:Timeline: The Secret History of Swine Flu - Boing Boing
What Pandemics and Meteorology Have in Common - Boing Boing
The Aporkalypse: Researchers Want Your Help - Boing Boing
Swine Flu Fun Facts - Boing Boing
Reaching fo... More.
RSS Feed
Oh, that is fucking priceless!
I am now going to run out and buy domains for:
glennbecktieshisskinnydickinaknotandthatiswhyhecriesallthetime.com
and
glennbecksuinganyonefordefamationisabsurdsinceheisalreadysoadeptattarnishinghisownreputationbybeingsuchahypocriticallyingassdouchebag.com
I think we should all acquire at least one domain each. The more the merrier. Pile on!
Cheers.
When the domain name is a clear and complete sentence like that, I'd say yes.
But it's only defamation if it's untrue.
So it's ok to call somebody a rapist and a murderer as long as you say it's satire?
And what of URLs in say Moldavia or Tuvalu?
Still actionable in US courts?
I've been wary of such URLs after learning that, in fact, Barack Obama is NOT my new bicycle.
Let this be a lesson to us all: Always preface your potentially defamatory domain names with "somesay..."
If the URL says he is guilty of a crime and it isn't true, it's pretty clearly libel.
I hate to admit it, since I despise Glenn Beck, but the domain name itself does form a statement accusing Mr. Beck of committing a felony that hasn't been proven. I'm no attorney, but I'd say in this particular situation he would have a case. If it was something more generic, like
www.glennbeckisadouchebag.com
I'd think it was funny. But stating to the public, even in the form of a domain name, that someone has committed a heinous crime without any evidence is indeed defamatory. I think more people would agree if the target wasn't someone so detestable. Basically, I agree with Mr. Levy's assessment in the linked article.
I don't think the parody claim is appropriate in this instance- speaking for myself, I hadn't heard of the "did not rape and kill a young girl" joke/meme before I read the article- when I saw this domain name, I did actually briefly wonder if there was some past incident that Beck had swept under the rug that this site was trying to bring to light. It's fair to say that others might make a similar mistake.
How about:
www.inmyopinionglennbeckisanasshole.com
Shouldn't this be covered by 1st amendment?
@ #3
The entire point behind the site is that it is a parody of Beck's style of "news" - to continually state things as if they are "rumors" so that he can spread misinformation while still proclaiming to be innocent of defamation. All of the things on there are phrased as: "I heard somewhere that.." or "I don't know if it's true, but I heard that..." or "I'm not saying it's true, but it would be horrible if..."
It's pretty obviously satire.
For example, in an episode a few days ago, Beck said Obama shouldn't have hired a Marxist communist radical in the first place, and isn't it curious how Obama keeps surrounding himself with radicals?
Bill O'Reilly replied; "So you're saying Obama wants to make America a Marxist communist nation?"
To which Beck replied: "I don't know, I'm just asking."
You should look up the video, it's quite annoying. And when Bill O'Reilly thinks you're being ridiculous, perhaps it's time to quit.
Looks like they're moving over to the domain name
didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com
which seems like a smart move to me. The point is made just as effectively without the same risk of a libel suit.
Methinks he doth protest too much...
@Ugly Canuck: Most likely. You forget which country retains control of the DNS system. It's probably the case that all domain registrations are technically "in the US".
I see the point about the URL itself, potentially, but by that level of standard, any sign calling Obama a Nazi is defamation (and if you say Obama is a public figure, well then so is Beck).
So did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Just asking.
Yes, Kieran: but enforcement of any (default) judgment could be a problem, no? If (like say the Pirate Bay), there are no US citizens "behind" the URL?
By way of response, I have registered TheGuyWhoMadeThatWebsiteAboutGlennBeckKilledAndAteSevenBabies.com
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?
I don't know you guys... he seems TOTALLY rational all the time. Exhibit A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGeZQrpZbjI
Glenn Beck is a public figure.
Defamation is harder to prove for a public figure.
No matter if the person is or is not a public figure, making a statement - regardless of context - that is independent (and domain names are often used and communicated independent of the content of the domain) of the context, that states as a fact that a particular person committed a particular crime, and that fact has not been proven to the satisfaction of the legal system, it is considered to be defamatory. Period. Full Stop.
IANAL. IANYL. TINLA.
#10: All of the things on there are phrased as: "I heard somewhere that.." or "I don't know if it's true, but I heard that..." or "I'm not saying it's true, but it would be horrible if..."
And if the website had been IDontKnowIfItsTrueButIHeardThatGlennBeckRapesSchoolchildren.com , that might actually qualify as satire, then. As it stands, they went with an obscure joke about Bob Saget -- was Bob Saget somehow related to Glenn Beck? Are we trying to imply that he is?
There is no practical difference between acting like a douchebag and being a douchebag. Congratulations, anonymous URL-register. You have successfully descended to the level of Glenn Beck. (Who, despite rumours to the contrary, did NOT rape and murder a young girl in 1990 OR 1992.)
Perhaps the noble trope of praeteritio could help us? As in the hypothetical URL IWontTalkAboutGlennBeckEatingShitAndCallingItFriedChicken? Just a thought....
The ultimate Fox News style attack:
SomePeopleSayThatGlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAGirlIn1999.com
Anyhow, in my country, from what I've seen of Beck (and his TV channel disappeared PDQ from our basic cable once he started up!) his rants come pretty darn close to violating our "hate speech" laws, what with his apparent "defamation" of entire groups based solely upon their religious orientation and/or country of origin.
I do not know, but I would not be surprised if our Radio and Television Commission did not receive some complaints from the Canadian public over his war-mongering bigoted rants.
This is funny-- in US law, libel claims that are so absurd as to be obviously false are not considered libel. ("Bob sleeps on a bed of murdered infants and has raped the Statue of Liberty. Twice").
So is it too absurd to be true, or not? Funny.
@8 InsaneEddie "I hate to admit it, since I despise Glenn Beck, but the domain name itself does form a statement accusing Mr. Beck of committing a felony that hasn't been proven"
Has he denied it?
Every time I'm out in public, I see a lot of potential.
Potential murderers, potential rapists...just like Mr. B.
Beware, Glenn Beck carries more grudges
than lonely Supreme Court judges.
www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Glenn_Beck
will be helpful in explaining the controversy.
Remember, both sides are equally valid.
Fair and balanced, folks.
Fair and balanced.
Also, Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.
9/10 1990. Never Forget!
The thing is, hiding behind lawyers is exactly the kind of behaviour you would expect from someone who raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
Seems to me that the people Beck is going after are the ones with the ethical problems. Becks ratings are sky high and climbing and history has already proven the guy to be a factually correct straight shooter, although a little paranoid.
Go get-em Glenn.
From wikipedia:
"If there is third-party communication, but the third-party hearing the defamatory statement does not believe the statement, or does not care, then there is no injury, and therefore, no recourse."
There has to be actual damages. Damages are notoriously difficult to prove. I don't think that any reasonable person could form a belief about something like Beck being a rapist and murderer based on a fucking URL. A court might find differently but I'd sure like to represent the dude who's being sued.
Of course I haven't seen the website but unless it seriously--and without being pretty obviously satire--claims maliciously that Beck indeed is a rapist murderer, this dude's gonna be fine.
The name itself comes from Gilbert Gottfried's segment of the Comedy Central roast of Bob Saget. An outstanding performance
Why are Glenn Beck and his legal lackies so desperate to quash this discussion? All he has to do is provide evidence that he did not rape and murder a poor innocent young girl in 1990, and this huge scandal will go away. Instead, it's stonewalling, legal bullying and censorship.
I'm not saying he did or didn't rape and murder a poor innocent young girl in 1990, I'm just saying that there is obviously something fishy about this: >someonesomething
I'll go out on a limb: most of those who think this is a just a joke really haven't even examined the evidence, for and against. Pretty despicable behaviour, if you ask me.
Actually the site seems to be up and running. It is *clearly* satirical. I am not super up on my defamation law, but it's hard for me to believe that a judge would entertain this suit.
You have no idea how much you just blew my mind.
1) So what makes them think that the URL refers to their client? Glenn Beck isn't that uncommon a name. I would say a legitimate defense would be if anyone named Glenn Beck committed such a crime.
2) Is there any chance that the victim of the supposed crime was named "Nancy Grace". Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.
3) I would LOOOOVE if one of the defendants was a victim of defamation by Beck on his TV show and counter-sued.
A lot of people here are sticking up for Glenn Beck, but what about the young girl?
No sympathy at all.
You might say "What do you mean? It's a satire, she doesn't exist! She never existed!"
In other words, she's been "disappeared," a tactic used by right-wing autocrats from the Nazis to Latin American dictators.
Real classy.
@31 WalterSear "I'll go out on a limb: most of those who think this is a just a joke really haven't even examined the evidence, for and against. "
Has he provided *any* evidence to the contrary?
What does *that* tell you? Hmm?
Encyclopaedia Dramatica gets it right: "Glenn is a professional troll, as is everyone on every cable news station, and while this means he should be generating lulz by pwning others, he more frequently pwns himself [..]"
This is the same crap he and his ilk in 24-hour news (especially Fox) pull when they say things like, "rumors are swirling about Obama's ties to former terrorist William Ayers." It's all in that gray "hear-say" area that can be used to skirt responsibility. I love how the site says that Beck won't deny it...another favorite tactic of crapmongers.
Glenn Beck is a public figure.
Defamation is harder to prove for a public figure.
No matter if the person is or is not a public figure, making a statement - regardless of context - that is independent (and domain names are often used and communicated independent of the content of the domain) of the context, that states as a fact that a particular person committed a particular crime, and that fact has not been proven to the satisfaction of the legal system, it is considered to be defamatory. Period. Full Stop.
IANAL. IANYL. TINLA.
I am not convinced that it was a girl or that the rape preceded the murder.
Why hasn't Beck simply accounted for where he was in 1990?
Or simply state on air, after swearing on a Bible, that he didn't rape and kill a young girl?
Is that too much to ask? Rape and murder are serious charges and you'd think he'd be happy to clear up the matter.
@#28: Exactly right. If these allegations are false, what is Glenn Beck so afraid of? It's highly suspicious that he's acting so quickly to suppress this website.
In fact, all it would take to satisfy me would be a simple statement from Beck denying these charges. End of story. And yet we're not getting that. Coincidence? Or something more sinister?
Good work, Mr. Streisand. Because publicity around this wasn't their goal the entire time?
Howdy, just found this. Fantastic! I'm so glad to see this spread.
Please feel free to check out the site at gb1990.com - the full origin is there. And if you email me with a complain, I'll send you a nice reply with lots more info. My phone number is even on the site.
If you think the point is to smear Beck with these obviously satirical accusations, you've *whoosh* missed the point.
Take care,
-Name Withheld
I think Beck wins this one on pure legal grounds. The URI is intended to be a readable English statement, and until and unless Beck has been found guilty this does count as defamation.
If they'd made it a question ("didGlennBeck...."), or if they'd taken any of the other standard reportorial solutions to indicate that this is alleged rather than proven, they might have gotten away with it.
Though frankly, if you have to pack your whole rumor into the URI, I would assume you have no evidence and are simply spreading FUD. I don't care who your opponent is, that's unacceptable.
This is sick and makes me sad. Glenn Beck is a nut, no doubt. But to use the idea of rape and murder, especially of a young girl is sick. It simply further objectifies women and turns rape and murder into a joke rather than sheds serious light on it. Perhaps if we lived in the Congo instead of the Suburbs, we'd have a bit more compassion, common sense, and decency. Just because Glenn Beck is indecent as a human doesn't mean we have to sink to that level. It does nothing to help the cause of humanitarianism to be so vile. It makes the true message of Jesus, love and sacrifice, seem all the more desirable.
@ ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive:
"If the URL says he is guilty of a crime and it isn't true, it's pretty clearly libel."
Nothing is ever "pretty clearly libel." Intent must be proven. I love how so many people weigh in on legal issues, only to find that their opinions aren't the law. In the United States, the word "libel" has a very specific legal definition. Much like the word "murder," which non-lawyer Bill O'Reilly repeatedly used to describe slain abortion provider George Tiller.
Beck's lawyers must prove that registering this domain was intentionally defamatory in order for the accusation to be true. Simply put, nothing is libelous until it is proven. Defamatory, perhaps, but not necessarily illegal. I for one hope that the defense makes a case for "qualified privilege." After all, if there is even a smidgen of truth to the allegations against Beck, the public has a right to know.
My grandpappy used to say, "Where there's smoke there's fire."
So there's still no evidence being presented that refutes the rumors/accusation that Mr.Glenn Beck raped and murder a young girl in 1990? Interesting. Has anyone actually seen his birth certificate? I know I never have.
Uberduche! I love it. The audacity of this turkey being thin skinned makes me ill. His behavior is an abuse of free speech and if he can't take the heat, he should get out of hell's kitchen.
The site satirizes how Glenn Beck uses the "No Denial Means Guilt" argument, I think that puts "Unclean Hands" into play as a legal strategy.
Refer to the roast of Bob Saget(starts about one minute in)for relevant background information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWJ2zRqsLPg
Situational humor may not be appropriate for young children or the workplace.
This seems a good point to introduce the powerful effect of firmly denying statements.
For example: it is entirely true that Glenn Beck is not reacting this way to cover up his rape and murder of a young girl in 1990. This is not a defamatory statement, nor is is conjecture. It is solid truth.
How about glennbeckisgoatse.cx
We don't know for sure that wasn't him either. But it sure looks like him.
the only way to kill a douche like Glen is to ignore him. To speak nothing, write nothing, to cut off altogether. He even describes himself as a clown. Him, Drugs Windbag, Blotchy O'Lielly, Sideshow Ann, all of them. No press for douches.
glenbecklikeschickensifyouknowwhatimean.com
Now, could that be construed as libel?
The actual content of the site is very obviously satirical, and the point is a good one (though I agree with Anonymous @47 that it seems to unintentionally reveal the satirist's flippancy about raping and murdering young girls - I like how he was surprised that a rape victim might actually find it somewhat distasteful to see such a horrific crime used for laffs). Why not just switch to the URL that's formulated like a question and avoid the legal controversy altogether?
Ben Gleck did what in 1990?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2253512/
This is Glenn Beck's imdb page and do you notice anything strange? Anything at all? Now I'm not saying that Ted Danson knows something but I'm afraid he just might.
Has he denied that he murdered and raped a girl yet?
Is this kosher?: www.xenijardinwasoneofthestarsoftwogirlsonecup.com
“I kissed my sister. First our lips met, seconds later our tongues. I ran my fingers through her silky hair and felt her soft skin. It was the height of passion and the moment I knew who my true love was . . . We knew we had done something so wrong, but at the same time, something so very right.” - Glenn Beck, The Real America: Messages From the Heart and Heartland
I don't know what difference it makes that the statement was in a domain name, but it looks to me like a defamatory statement (unless it's true). I mean, a public statement is a public statement, regardless of whether it's in a domain name, a t-shirt, on a piece of paper, or spelled out in macaroni. I mean, if I told a public lie about someone using macaroni, people wouldn't be asking, "could macaroni be defamatory?"
A defamatory statement is merely a negative public statement about someone that is not true. I don't know whether or not the statement is true, but it's really not an issue whether a statement is or is not a public just because it's made in a domain name.
As for negativity, accusing someone of rape is always a negative statement regardless of their existing reputation. People seem to hate this Glenn Beck guy. I'm pretty conservative myself, but I've never listened to Glenn Beck before because he works for Fox News, which I consider to be a partisan mouthpiece for the neo-cons.
@#3: The wingnuts, including Beck, do it all the time. All the time. Quite often without the figleaf of "some say."
I don't know seems pretty justified to me, if someone registered and insulting domain using my name I'd at least try take care of it using the only legal recourse, a lawsuit for defamation. What was he supposed to do, go "oh you crazy guys, sure, I don't mind being insulted, h'yuk h'yuk h'yuk" ?
It can only be libel if it is believably true, otherwise it is satire and constitutionally protected. So ironically, the only way they can claim libel is to admit that lots of people WOULD believe that Glenn Beck raped and killed a young girl.
THe point is they forgot the word DID which would have got them off them hook Glenn Beck Style.
Glenn Beck has a deep seeded hatred for consensual sex in 1990, and his efforts to disprove that he didn't rape woman in 1990 have been totally DEBUNKED!!!
How about...
www.ItwaskarmicretributionwhenGlennBeckmockedtheFastFoodNationauthorbysecretlychokingdownahamburgerwhiletalkingtotheauthoronthephone/Yearslater/henearlydiedfromhemorhoidsurgery/whichmayhadbeenunneededhadhebeeneatingadietrichinfiber/whichisnotfoundinfastfood.com
While there's a clownish element to Beck, he has fans, and his hyperbole against Obama is pretty intense. He's pretty much stated that Obama is evil, socialist, communist, radical, racist and is pouring gasoline on Average Americans. Stating that someone is pouring gasoline on average Americans is pretty much the definition of inflammatory speech. He's been supportive of the gun-toter outside Obama's event. Should harm come to Obama from one of his fans, there would be a lot of blame to lay at Beck's feet.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. NEXT!
Even as advertisers flee his show amidst the swirling controversy, Beck nonetheless refuses to deny the rumors, instead suing not for libel but... trademark infringement?
I 'm starting to think that maybe the clever bastard's behind his own rumors in a desperate bid to play the victim.
Diabolical.
http://gb1990.com/ - inoffensive!
and highly amusing - if only because he's reading it and fuming
The question here isn't "did glenn beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990". That's not what the website is trying to address.
There are people talking about glen beck's rape and murder of a girl in 1990. Personally, I don't believe this to be true. And, the authors of this website don't take a stand - that's why it would would be inappropriate use the question as their website. They are more interested in the people who are saying these things, and why it hasn't been addressed in the mainstream media (or by glenn).
Please, TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.
It's a very specific accusation, it's false, there are enough people who are ignorant enough they'll believe it, people believing it could conceivably hurt viewership and therefore it is injurious. It seems to me there's a good case for considering it libel. I'd say it's immaterial whether the libelous phrase occurs in the URL or in the text of the website. It's the difference between having the accusation in a newspaper headline or buried in the text. It comes to the same thing.
I think the question everyone's asking is: Is this really the behaviour you would expect from someone who didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990?
Bah, who reads URLs anyway?
Seriously tho' your image is crooked. You might want to fix that.
The idea of Glenn Beck raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 (in the haze of his admitted alcoholism/drug addiction days) is at least as credible as his "honest questions" about our president being a socialist.
Since you can't have question marks in URLs (right?) the site had no choice but to leave the punctuation out...but they are obviously "just asking". As Beck says on his show, I'm sure they would "love to be proved wrong" but NO ONE IS STEPPING UP. What the hell does that tell you? People need to just wake up. God. I'm sorry I'm getting teary here...but... God. I..love my country.
Sigh.
WHERE IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ON THIS STORY?????!
For those of you who don't have a problem with such a domain name, how would you like it if someone did something similar to you and that site started popping up every time a potential employer googled your name?
I think it's pretty reasonable to suspect that potential employers might pass over persons who are associated with such claims, even if false and satirical.
It would be a lot harder to claim defamation if the domain name were a subdomain of another site like The Onion, or if the name wer simply the title of a piece there, where people expect to find satire.
Because lord knows that life and sexual autonomy are highly valued in the Congo!
(Hey, soapboxes are great, but I think you missed the point of this thread.)
#47 has a point.
Perhaps if Beck had 'buggered and butchered a badger in 1990' it would have seemed a little more palatable?
FREE SPEECH!
FREE SPEECH!
Why does Glenn Beck hate America so?
If Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder that young girl in 1990, it should be a simple matter for him to get her to appear on his show and say so.
I'm not saying that Glenn Beck has dug up the cadaver of Joseph McCarthy, draped the tattered remnants of flesh over his head as a frightmask and used spurious accusastions with no basis in reality to further his own ratings, spread his political ideology and destroy the lives of innocent individuals. But that is certainly what he's doing, except for the part involving the actual cadaver of McCarthy.
So satirical attacks on him that point out his methods are richly deserved.
Also, you never see him in the same room as someone who claimed that they raped and murdered Vince Foster. Why is that? I'm not saying he raped and murdered Vince Foster. No one's saying that. But doesn't the lack of any dots to connect scare you enough into asking why aren't there any dots to connect? As Americans, shouldn't we be unafraid to ask the hard questions? Wake up people.
Beck's not an uberdouche. He's just doing the Howard Biel bit from the movie Network. He was responsible for getting rid of Van Jones, which is kinda scary that a radical like that managed to become a Presidential advisor. Beck's just Biel with a lot more squalling, that's all.
Jon Leibowitz is the uberdouche. He's unfunny, hold moronic positions (like Truman was a war criminal), and espouses a worldview that is not only un-American but staunchly anti-American.
But this is just a case of the left being as classy as they usually are.
People in glass houses. . . .
Compare and contrast.
My limited understanding is that it's only libel if A) the allegations are false, and B) a reasonable person might believe it to be true.
With anybody but Glenn Beck, they wouldn't have much of a case on that second requirement. I can just imagine the scene in the courtroom. "Your honor, the accusation is clearly a plausible one. I mean, just look at my client! The man is unhinged, entirely mad, firmly grounded in unreality, cuckoo for cocoa puffs, gone round the bend, certifiable, nutters, batshit crazy. He's got that look in his eye that says, 'no, I did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990. But ask me about 1994.' Frankly, I'm fearful just to be in the same room with him. I mean, my god! The man knows where my family lives! Please, your honor, just give him what he wants!"
In short, I believe Glenn Beck's case is pretty solid.
Did Glenn Beck father a crack-addicted prostitute's child in 1992? Has he been covering this up for the last 17 years?
News at 11.
If the White House won't answer Glenn Beck's questions, he should not have to deny these rumors. Even if Glenn Beck DID rape and murder a young girl in 1990, he does not need to deny it.
Glenn Beck's show reminds me of a remote piece of land in a war zone. No one can or wants to live in that area and there's no natural resources: the land has no value to humans. But for some reason during the war that land is used by one side, so the other side attacks it. Reinforcements get called in. Counter-reinforcements get called in. Huge amounts of fuel and equipment is destroyed. Thousands of people loose family members as soldiers kill and maim each other and come home physically and emotionally crippled for the rest of their lives. What happens after the war? A couple of weeks later everyone packs up and leaves and it goes back to being a remote piece of land that's no value to anyone.
Most Liberals and Conservatives know Glenn Beck's show is ridiculous. (Both Conservatives and Liberals are a lot more rational then the other side would like to think they are.) It would hardly get noticed except that Liberals decided to force the show off the air. Suddenly Conservatives decide they're not going to be pushed around anymore and watch, even if they think it's a silly show, just to keep the Liberals from winning. So the Liberals increase the attacks on Beck because they want a big victory against the Conservatives and the Conservatives watch more and more and everyone is fighting over something that if it had been left alone, would have eventually just gone away.
I love this controversy - how effective would an "unclean hands" argument be for the website? I'm going to look up my defamation notes...
May I suggest that mr Beck do as i do, and sing a long to this:
oops...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOIqiVnYq4o
Or perhaps he should sing along to this, if he should prefer...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9hJObWhU7c
I’m not saying he definitely did it, but it is curious how he’s not out there denying it. I mean where is his statement on this issue? Where is his criminal record? He should release these things to the public if these so-called allegations are false, but it’s pretty disturbing nonetheless. What is he hiding?
Seems like all the hate is in here.
#36 wins this thread by a longshot.