Snyder writes open letter to Washington Post regarding City Paper lawsuit

Context is open for interpretation, that's the problem.

in the spirit of mattys new thread thread this morning


dan snyder wrote an open letter to the post giving his reasoning why he is going forward with suing the city paper...

Why I am suing Washington City Paper - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-am-suing-washington-city-paper/2011/04/25/AFYQC1kE_story.html)

Upon reading this article late last night I added the link and quote to an already existing thread that could be considered recent. Since the subject matter detailed basically what we already know, the need for a new thread escaped me. What we didn't know was that the lawsuit was refiled in the Washington courts.

I still think he is being a bit thin-skinned about this - he still could have let the whole thing go - but his position is somewhat understandable.

One more thing. I think the biggest irony in all this is he's claiming they are lying and has done exactly the same thing he's accusing them of.

Dan Snyder Lawsuit - Update from the Publisher - Washington City Paper (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/legaldefense/pages/openletter)
Snyder’s litigators, and ours, are about to spend significant time and money battling over a series of legal complaints that, in our view, don’t represent what our story actually said or implied. The story didn’t actually say the things Snyder has claimed it does—like call him a criminal, or a user of illegal military chemicals, or mock his wife’s battle against breast cancer. It did none of those things.


Snyder has outright lied about what the story said, and I've heard this with my own ears on the Lavar and Dukes show. He claimed they were mocking his wife's battle against breast cancer, but the TV interview the article talked about had to do with Play 60. Nothing cancer related, but yet this asshole had the nerve to play the "cancer card" to gain sympathy. Guy is a first class asshat, and that'll never change. Then he had the audacity to throw his PR guy under the bus and claim it was all his idea. If it was indeed his idea, then this guy is clueless about the PR industry.

We aren't debating about fact, we are debating context. I think the sentence

This isn't meant to be taken literally that Dan Snyder is the guy actually forging names. It's meant to be taken that Dan Snyder was in charge of a company that was found guilty of forging names, and had to know the practices were going on.

McKenna even mentions as much later on in the article.



Context is everything. As noted by the Jerry Falwell vs Hustler case.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell)

You missed the point about context. The line read:
That’s the Dan Snyder who got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications

That is different from a more factually correct claim:
That’s the Dan Snyder whose company got caught forging names

Notice that if I say:
Obama leads a country which has dog fighting

it is different than if I say:
Obama fights dogs in his country

Yes, context is everything, and on this point the newspaper is in the wrong because of poor wording.

No hiding it here, I am a Snyder supporter. Hope he wins the suit. Sometimes you have to use your power to lay the smack down.

You missed the point about context. The line read:
That’s the Dan Snyder who got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications

That is different from a more factually correct claim:
That’s the Dan Snyder whose company got caught forging names

Notice that if I say:
Obama leads a country which has dog fighting

it is different than if I say:
Obama fights dogs in his country

Yes, context is everything, and on this point the newspaper is in the wrong because of poor wording.

But you have to be able to prove that the context was meant to be malicious, and Dan isn't going to be able to do that. The article was a parody on Dan Snyder's business life and the many stupid things he's done. It wasn't meant to be serious, nor was it's objective to call him a criminal.

Not sure if you scanned it, but check out what the Supreme Court had to say about these types of parodies and articles.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell)

He probably has a point but I just don't care. I look forward to the day when the Redskins are no longer a soap opera...

Sometimes you have to use your power to lay the smack down.


You mean like how he tried to change one town's policy so that the local owners couldn't make money?

Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder's amusing failure at Six Flags. - By Dave McKenna - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2252716/)
In 2007, Snyder sent Shapiro, his handpicked CEO, to lobby the Agawam mayor and the town council into banning visitors from parking at the non-Six Flags-owned lots. Shapiro testified at a public hearing that it was unsafe for pedestrians to walk to Six Flags from anywhere but its own lots. The local politicians banned the satellite lots after Shapiro's appearance.

The stadium ban was tossed out in 2004 when a Prince George's County, Md., judge ruled that Redskins management had invented the safety issue to force ticketholders to pay Snyder's tops-in-the-league parking fees. When Palazzi pointed out that there hadn't been a single safety problem related to the satellite lots in Agawam, the town council quickly repealed the ban by unanimous vote. Palazzi then went on to manage the political campaign of substitute teacher Susan Dawson, who used the Six Flags parking issue to unseat four-term incumbent Agawam Mayor Richard Cohen in November 2007. "We fought a multibillion-dollar corporation and the corruption in this town, and we won," Palazzi said after the election. "Good triumphed."


You'd figure the American people would be sick and tired of corporate assholes influencing and corrupting our government to make them even richer. I guess not. At least one small town learned and removed the assholes and policies that allowed him.

He probably has a point but I just don't care. I look forward to the day when the Redskins are no longer a soap opera...

Well this is all about Dan Snyder and not the Redskins in my opinion. I guess this matters to Redskins fans because he is the owner of the team, but honestly I don't see how any of this has to do with the Redskins as a football team.

He probably has a point but I just don't care. I look forward to the day when the Redskins are no longer a soap opera...

I thought that would end with the arrival of Shanny and Bruce, but the way Fat Albert and McNabb situations were handled last year, Im still waiting.