Bad PR as a result of Snyder... sound familiar?

[JCaptMorgan12]

enjoy...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Dan-Snyder-is-trying-to-get-a-newspaper-reporter?urn=nfl-315778

[SkinsJock]

- well that was enlightening

I thought it might be something 'new' ... but ... same old re-hash - this is right up there with the name change posts - a bunch of crapola

I'll be really surprised if there's a lawsuit filed - more piling on IMO

[KazooSkinsFan]

enjoy...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Dan-Snyder-is-trying-to-get-a-newspaper-reporter?urn=nfl-315778

An article by someone with an agenda on an article on someone with the same agenda's not very compelling for anything. It doesn't mean either is wrong, but I'd like to read something actually objective on it before having an opinion and this isn't that.

[Irn-Bru]

No doubt about it, Snyder is a jerk. That he is even considering a defamation lawsuit in response to that article says it all. He's just not a good person.

[KazooSkinsFan]

No doubt about it, Snyder is a jerk. That he is even considering a defamation lawsuit in response to that article says it all. He's just not a good person.

Don't you really need to see what Snyder is claiming though to really say that? If the article makes a specific claim which is serious and unsubstantiated then that could be the basis of a reasonable lawsuit for damages.

but wow, what would have have had to say about Snyder to hurt HIS reputation? I'm thinking that he secretly kills puppies isn't going to do it...

[CanesSkins26]

GREAT line...

The good news for McKenna and City Paper is that if Snyder's past is any indication, this lawsuit will fail. Dan Snyder is like the bizarro King Midas. Everything he touches falls to pieces.

[markshark84]

I think this may be the most hiliarious thing that has happened in quite some time.

I read the article and one of the numerous things stated by the author was how Snyder sued his own fans. And then, in response to the article which criticizes Danny for suing his fans, what does Danny boy do????? -- He sues the newspaper!!!!!!

What a bufffon. This is just a perfect example of the mindset of the power-hungry, control freak that is Snyder. After he took ownership of the team, he purchased basically every single media outlet in Washington so that he could control what people said about him. Then, a small rinky-dink paper comes out with a well-researched (and true!!) article about all of Danny's failures and he wants the guy fired. He's, once again, acting like a 10 year old. Remember when he banned anti-Snyder signs a couple years back???? -- Yeah, this is basically the same thing. He is such a little b!tch.

And from his most recent media interview he wants us to think that he has "changed". Did he really think that the people in DC are that stupid. Admitting your mistakes is great, but then, after maybe a month, he shows he learned absolutely nothing from them. As I have said and will always say, "actions are all I care about". He can say all he wants, but once again his actions prove he is the same old sue happy, ego-driven, idiot he has always been. And the funny thing is that he wants to sue for defamation. Things generally have to be false to win on defamation.

Just a great example of the type of owner we have here in DC.

[CanesSkins26]

No doubt about it, Snyder is a jerk. That he is even considering a defamation lawsuit in response to that article says it all. He's just not a good person.

Don't you really need to see what Snyder is claiming though to really say that? If the article makes a specific claim which is serious and unsubstantiated then that could be the basis of a reasonable lawsuit for damages.

but wow, what would have have had to say about Snyder to hurt HIS reputation? I'm thinking that he secretly kills puppies isn't going to do it...

If he had a reasonable basis for a lawsuit he would have filed one by now. Besides, as a public person he would have to show that the article was written with "actual malice" in order to win a libel lawsuit, which is a nearly impossible legal standard to meet. He has no case and is just trying to bully a small newspaper.

[JCaptMorgan12]

I wasn't posting this article as enlightening or something new... I believe the original article (the cause for the outcry and possible lawsuit by Snyder) was posted on this board... I figured most people had read it as it had some funny points... it was posted because I couldn't believe he was going to these lengths, but amybe he is because he has more time now as a result of giving up control over the team...

[KazooSkinsFan]

If he had a reasonable basis for a lawsuit he would have filed one by now. Besides, as a public person he would have to show that the article was written with "actual malice" in order to win a libel lawsuit, which is a nearly impossible legal standard to meet. He has no case and is just trying to bully a small newspaper.

I'm not arguing there is a lawsuit, only that the guy who wrote the article clearly had the same bias as the guy who wrote the article he was discussing. So if there were a basis for it he didn't seem like someone who would tell us. That doesn't mean there is a basis though. And you're probably right that it's hot air.

[TCIYM]

The fact of the lawsuit is Snyder was accused of communications fraud in the article two years AFTER he sold Snyder Communications. Accusing someone of a felony record without concrete proof was journalistic suicide. Both the author and the editor should do some semblance of fact-checking before printing accusations of criminal activity, whether it be Dan Snyder or anyone else they are so accusing. This is also the first time Snyder has files suit against any media for any reason.

[Redskin in Canada]

No doubt about it, Snyder is a jerk. That he is even considering a defamation lawsuit in response to that article says it all. He's just not a good person.

Amen.

We can add stupidity and playing into the hands of his critics too.

[Irn-Bru]

No doubt about it, Snyder is a jerk. That he is even considering a defamation lawsuit in response to that article says it all. He's just not a good person.

Don't you really need to see what Snyder is claiming though to really say that? If the article makes a specific claim which is serious and unsubstantiated then that could be the basis of a reasonable lawsuit for damages.

As it happens I don't think any damage payments on account of libel would be reasonable. But even granting that there could be reasonable damages for actual libel, for the sake of the argument: I've read the article in question (as most of us did when it was released), and it's a completely benign piece of writing. Note that the author sources basically everything he claims with an already-published report. Readers can take a look at the source and decide for themselves what to think. Not to mention that the article is clearly written in a light-hearted jest (and accompanied by the kind of pictures you'd expect to see if that were true), even if the contents are embarrassing for Snyder if true.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the criteria for successfully proving that something is libel. But I do know that most often when big business places pressure on a small organization like this, they can by sheer force of weight cause them to give in. And that's what really pisses me off about this story, because it's pretty clear that was Snyder's intent. He's a mega-millionaire and he thinks he can get whatever he wants because of it.

And that brings me to what is (IMO) the most important point: let's be clear about where the burden of proof lies. Snyder is threatening legal action. Even if he doesn't have a case, he could if he wanted to force this paper to spend tens of thousands of dollars putting together a defense for itself. That is what he's threatening them with. So, if Snyder is doing this merely because he's unhappy with what the newspaper said, and he's doing it knowing that he doesn't have a case, then that makes him a criminal IMO.

If that's what's going on, and I suspect it is, it's downright thugish and absolutely unacceptable. No more justifiable than robbing someone at gunpoint in the alley because they cut into "your" (imagined) turf.

In fact, if that's what's going on, it will cause me to lose more respect for Snyder than almost any other single action he's undertaken as an owner. The ball is in his court to show that he's doing this for legitimate reasons, but I won't be holding my breath as we wait to see whether he's got them.

but wow, what would have have had to say about Snyder to hurt HIS reputation? I'm thinking that he secretly kills puppies isn't going to do it...

[TCIYM]

The basis for the lawsuit:

DS

[Irn-Bru]

The basis for the lawsuit:

DS

Well, at least he has his reasons. I don't buy any of them, but he does have them.

Looks like the main beef, aside from the more laughable claims like antisemitism, is with the claim that Snyder's communications company getting caught in forgery. And of course I know nothing about that one way or the other. Going back to the original article it's one of the claims that has no link as a source.

OK, so he can be downgraded from "thuggish" to merely "a jerk," again.

[CanesSkins26]

The basis for the lawsuit:

DS

Yea, he's not going win that lawsuit.

[TCIYM]

And here is the docket:

Docket

[CanesSkins26]

With all of the money that Snyder has at his disposal you would think that he could hire himself some better lawyers. The letter and the complaint are both poorly written and take liberties with the law. I would have been embarrassed to turn something like that in while in law school. It's pretty clear from reading that that Snyder and his people have no interest in winning the lawsuit on the merits. They are just trying to bury the paper in legal fees in hopes of getting a settlement.

[KazooSkinsFan]

No doubt about it, Snyder is a jerk. That he is even considering a defamation lawsuit in response to that article says it all. He's just not a good person.

Don't you really need to see what Snyder is claiming though to really say that? If the article makes a specific claim which is serious and unsubstantiated then that could be the basis of a reasonable lawsuit for damages.

As it happens I don't think any damage payments on account of libel would be reasonable. But even granting that there could be reasonable damages for actual libel, for the sake of the argument: I've read the article in question (as most of us did when it was released), and it's a completely benign piece of writing. Note that the author sources basically everything he claims with an already-published report. Readers can take a look at the source and decide for themselves what to think. Not to mention that the article is clearly written in a light-hearted jest (and accompanied by the kind of pictures you'd expect to see if that were true), even if the contents are embarrassing for Snyder if true.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the criteria for successfully proving that something is libel. But I do know that most often when big business places pressure on a small organization like this, they can by sheer force of weight cause them to give in. And that's what really pisses me off about this story, because it's pretty clear that was Snyder's intent. He's a mega-millionaire and he thinks he can get whatever he wants because of it.

And that brings me to what is (IMO) the most important point: let's be clear about where the burden of proof lies. Snyder is threatening legal action. Even if he doesn't have a case, he could if he wanted to force this paper to spend tens of thousands of dollars putting together a defense for itself. That is what he's threatening them with. So, if Snyder is doing this merely because he's unhappy with what the newspaper said, and he's doing it knowing that he doesn't have a case, then that makes him a criminal IMO.

If that's what's going on, and I suspect it is, it's downright thugish and absolutely unacceptable. No more justifiable than robbing someone at gunpoint in the alley because they cut into "your" (imagined) turf.

In fact, if that's what's going on, it will cause me to lose more respect for Snyder than almost any other single action he's undertaken as an owner. The ball is in his court to show that he's doing this for legitimate reasons, but I won't be holding my breath as we wait to see whether he's got them

I agree with everything you say Irn-Bru. My point was more from the completely different angle that I don't like articles that critique articles and have the same exact bias as the articles they are critiquing. The author clearly hated Snyder as much as the author of the article on Snyder and was so flagrantly biased he had no credibility. To your point that doesn't mean that there is any basis at all for a lawsuit. I'm just saying if there was one, he wasn't going to tell us.

Even ESPN was less biased then that. They said he accused Snyder of "fraud," which is not that specific but serious. My favorite though was Snyder saying the devil presentation of him was "anti-Semitic." That being a great example of using facts to show what a boob he is rather then completely subjective statements.

[KazooSkinsFan]

As it happens I don't think any damage payments on account of libel would be reasonable

Question on this one. Are you saying you don't believe libel is ever a basis for "damage payments" or that you don't see how it could in the case of Snyder? If it's the latter, I think it's kind of strong but I do agree the hurdle would need to be pretty high. If it's the former, I totally don't agree. I don't think government should sensor speech. I do think if someone says an intentional lie to harm you and it harms you financially that suing for damages is completely valid.

[Irn-Bru]

Question on this one. Are you saying you don't believe libel is ever a basis for "damage payments"

That's right. You could say I hold a minority opinion on this.

[PulpExposure]

With all of the money that Snyder has at his disposal you would think that he could hire himself some better lawyers. The letter and the complaint are both poorly written and take liberties with the law. I would have been embarrassed to turn something like that in while in law school. It's pretty clear from reading that that Snyder and his people have no interest in winning the lawsuit on the merits. They are just trying to bury the paper in legal fees in hopes of getting a settlement.

Yeah, it's just a standard kitchen sink threat letter. And believe it or not, it's not the worst one I've ever read...

[PulpExposure]

Just read this on the Washington Post.

Memo to Dan Snyder: Thank you for your stewardship of the Redskins

To: Daniel Snyder, owner, Washington Redskins

From: Gene Weingarten

Re: Your lawsuit against the Washington City Paper because of an unflattering article about you.

I just want you to know you have my full support in this matter, as I support everything you have done during your stewardship of the Redskins. You rock. I wish you good health and long life and hope you run the franchise for many, many years to come. I say this with utmost sincerity as a lifelong fan of the New York Giants.

I know you are taking some criticism today from carping media types. They seem to think that you are not only behaving like a petty, vindictive bully but also that you are being strategically stupid - by bringing a vast new audience to a three-month-old, otherwise-obscure alternative-media piece, which can be found here.

I understand why you were upset by this article. By unkindly focusing only on the negative aspect of your ownership, the author, Dave McKenna, is suggesting that you are an avaricious, imperious, conscienceless plutocrat with callous contempt for the fans; a man whose Napoleonic, pouter-pigeon swagger conceals a doofus-like understanding of the game and whose pernicious, autocratic meddling has consigned the team to perpetual mediocrity and its players and coaches to a perennial state of harrowing anxiety, all of this starting virtually from the moment you arrived and continuing to this very minute.

This could cause a casual reader to conclude you are the most malign and incompetent owner in the history of organized sports, which is completely unfair. Because of his agenda, McKenna fails to contextualize all of this - neglecting to mention, to use just one obvious example, that former Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott used to let her dog poop on the playing field.

But I digress. The point I want to make - and I think I can speak not only for myself but for all Giants fans - is that you have been very, very good to us, and we appreciate it. It's not easy being an ardent supporter of a football team. In this sport, the cliche is mostly true: On any given Sunday, any team can defeat any other team. Such is the nature of this game, which is so often influenced by injuries and so often subject to the effects of intangibles like momentum. This keeps the devoted fan in a constant state of stress. You can't take any win for granted.

But thanks to you, twice a season we can. Nothing is certain, of course, but when a Redskins game approaches, we at least know that we will be facing a team in spiritual disarray, whose players have been assembled largely by whim and impulse and ego, coached by a person as insecure as a teenage girl at a prom, with a nose zit.

It helps. It helps a lot.

After another losing season in which your recently acquired $78 million over-the-hill quarterback got benched and your corpulent $100 million defensive lineman simply refused to play, it is heartening to see you focusing your resources on trying to punish a newspaper.

Yes, it may be a dreadfully arrogant and stupid thing to do. But the point is, you seem to want to do it. And believe me, what makes you happy makes me happy.

Lol!

[Irn-Bru]

[KazooSkinsFan]

Question on this one. Are you saying you don't believe libel is ever a basis for "damage payments"

That's right. You could say I hold a minority opinion on this.

Are you against all civil lawsuits? While I would operate it very differently then it is now in that in my system the "guilty" pay rather then the ones with money, that seems to be a legitimate government function to me, arbitrating disputes between citizens and compensating for harm caused.