Eiland-Hall created the site as a parody to express the view that Beck's commentary style challenged his guests to prove a negative.

Eiland-Hall filed a response brief to WIPO which cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, asserting the website's domain name was a form of free speech and satirical political humor.

Beck made a supplemental filing in the case arguing the domain name was misleading and might lead individuals to believe it contained factual information.

Eiland-Hall filed a surreply and stated Beck had depreciated the value of the First Amendment by attempting to evade its reach in a legal proceeding outside U.S. courts.

[2] At Saget's roast, Gottfried jokingly begged listeners to disregard the (nonexistent) rumor that his fellow comedian "raped and killed a girl in 1990".

[5][6] The audience in attendance at the Comedy Central Roast were both shocked and amused by the preposterous nature of Gottfried's joke which seemed more ludicrous each time he repeated it.

[18] Eiland-Hall told Politics Daily that after reading the initial thread at Fark which started the meme, he came to the conclusion that for those involved online participation in its propagation was a form of catharsis.

[20] By September 3, 2009, attorneys representing Mercury Radio Arts, Glenn Beck's media company, had requested that the domain registrar of Eiland-Hall's website delete the site.

[7] In an interview with Gawker on September 9, 2009, Eiland-Hall remarked that Beck's attorneys contacted the registrar of the domain, his hosting provider, as well as the company which housed the servers for his website.

[21] In September 2009, lawyers for Beck and Mercury Radio Arts filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) against the privacy service for Eiland-Hall's website.

[23] The complaint asserted that the website itself contained factually inaccurate information, was unauthorized and defamatory, and that it was highly probable it would create uncertainty among Beck's potential customers.

"[29] Randazza's letter concluded: "I am certain that neither party wishes to see First Amendment rights subordinated to international trademark principles, thus unwittingly proving Mr. Beck's point.

[32] He pointed out that because Beck was a public figure he had to prove a legal standard referred to as actual malice, and show that Eiland-Hall knew his assertions were inaccurate.

[32] He explained that this did not apply to Eiland-Hall's website even if it was knowingly inaccurate, because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell that no proof is needed for an absurd statement made in the context of satire.

[15] Eiland-Hall asserted in the surreply that Beck was the butt of a viral joke which was protected speech even if it was not perceived as comedic in nature by the subject.

[41] Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Corynne McSherry and Paul Levy of Public Citizen commented on the case to Ars Technica, calling Beck's trademark claim before the WIPO ridiculous.

[7] Jack Bremer of The First Post wrote that the attempt by Beck's lawyers arguing the domain name of the website was itself defamatory had likely never occurred before in the field of information technology law.

[19] Media commentators, including Paul Schmelzer of the Minnesota Independent,[24] Andy Carvin of National Public Radio,[6] and Andrew Allemann of Domain Name Wire, considered Randazza's legal brief entertainingly written.

[25] Writing for Bostonist, Rick Sawyer called Randazza's legal brief very funny and considered him among the uproariously amusing wordsmiths in North Shore, Massachusetts.

[27] Eriq Gardner of Adweek noted that the case had strategic import for the field of politics, referring to Beck's style of commentary as exemplified in the interview with Congressman Keith Ellison.

[17] Ed Brayton of ScienceBlogs called Randazza's request that Beck stipulate to United States law intellectually creative.

[29] Daily Kos pointed out the inherent hypocrisy in Beck's legal position of seeking redress in an international agency when compared to his prior statements criticizing foreign law in favor of U.S.

[18][47][48][b] Jim Emerson of the Chicago Sun-Times commented that the website's disclaimer was not enough to dissuade attorneys representing Beck from attempting to have the site removed, which triggered the Streisand effect and backfired against their client.

[18] Jeffrey Weiss of Politics Daily wrote that by taking legal action, Beck achieved the one impact he did not desire, namely garnering more attention for Eiland-Hall's website.

"[22] Citizen Media Law Project observed Beck had exacerbated the situation by intimating legal tactics against Eiland-Hall, which served to increase the popularity of the meme and coverage of it among blogs.

[13] At the conclusion of the WIPO case Glynnis MacNicol of Mediaite commented that those afforded freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment — including Glenn Beck — must allow for an Internet environment with the same rights given to everyone.

[50] Brayton of ScienceBlogs pointed out that Beck and his lawyers never replied to Randazza's request for all parties to stipulate to the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment in the case.

[51] Monica Hesse of The Washington Post remarked upon the conclusion of the case that the division between what is considered libel and satire was murky, and asked whether this determination was more difficult to make on the Internet where speech can be amplified by others.

[52] Wendy Davis of Online Media Daily commented on the potential impact of the case, and observed it was a victory for proponents of Internet rights.

"[1][53] The Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote in his 2010 book Tears of a Clown, that Beck had been baited by Eiland-Hall to confirm the importance of the United Nations.