Snyder writes open letter to Washington Post regarding City Paper lawsuit

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.

Ditto. Although you may have to wait a little longer, since all signs point at Haynesworth staying with the team.

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.

I think it is very hard to separate the two. Snyder's ownership of the Redskins is what makes him newsworthy to begin with, and it his stewardship of the team that was the biggest target in the City Paper article that he got so upset about. Snyder himself references his ownership of the team several times in his Wash. Post piece. And given that he has developed a fair amount of notoriety in the general sports world, stories like this end up getting publicity not just from Redskins fans and local news outlets, but bigger ones as well--ESPN's website is where I first saw mention of the lawsuit's original filing.

This is a no win situation for him or the team. He is in too deep now and has to take this lawsuit all the way.

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.

WELL PLAYED.... i do think Synder is thin skinned but can't really blame him for making the point. I hope he wins for the Homeless!....lol

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)

I am quite aware of the issue regarding maliciousness and parodies. But the article did not strike me as a parody and it definitely was not a parody when it accused Snyder of forgery. The forgery claim is an issue of factual correctness.

I am not a fan of Snyder, as my many critical comments on this site show. But I am not willing to be unreasonable. You seem to be driven by irrational, unthinking hatred. Good luck with that.

I am quite aware of the issue regarding maliciousness and parodies. But the article did not strike me as a parody and it definitely was not a parody when it accused Snyder of forgery. The forgery claim is an issue of factual correctness.

There again, context is the issue here. I take it one way, you take it another. Any article that starts off with a person's picture with scribble horns and mustache, I'm not going to take as a serious piece to begin with.

I am not a fan of Snyder, as my many critical comments on this site show. But I am not willing to be unreasonable. You seem to be driven by irrational, unthinking hatred. Good luck with that.

Exactly what have I said that makes you think I'm irrational? If anything, I've done everything to prove my stance and not just conjure up some make believe stuff that I heard from a friend. I've said this time and time again. I judge Dan Snyder on what he's done, not on things he hasn't done or things I perceive he's done. Your statement about me being driven on irrational and unthinking hatred is false, libel, and malicious. You'll be hearing from my lawyers soon. :P

Two points:


1. The court will decide if there are factual errors in the City Paper article. Snyder will assert that there are; the City Paper will assert that there not. If each side continues to repeat its position, no new light is shed on the matter. My guess: There are some factual errors and there are some factual truths in the article.


2. Since Daniel Snyder is clearly a public figure - - in the legal definition of that term - - it is insufficient for him to prove that there are factual errors in the article. Because he is a public figure, he must also convince a court that the author and publisher knew they were inaccurate and published them anyway with the intent of harming Daniel Snyder specifically. Once again, the court will make that decision. My guess: I don't think it will be easy to convince the court that there was a malicious intent prior to publication


Note, both paragraphs above end with "My guess:" - - and the emphasis is on the word "guess". I suspect we will hear about this case as it moves forward another half-dozen times before a judge rules on it.

Personally, I have heard enough about it already. Time to ignore this until the judge bangs his/her gavel and reveals the final answer...

Personally, I have heard enough about it already. Time to ignore this until the judge bangs his/her gavel and reveals the final answer...


We can end this thread with this.

I lived in the DC area for 36 years and I was fully aware the City Paper frequently wrote tongue in cheek comical pieces. The City Paper has prostitution advertising in the back disguised as a massage services and strip joints advertise in it. Mr Snyder also grew up in the DC area and knows this. It was 100% clear to me this was a spoof piece. Not to be taken literally.

I am curious, is Mr. Snyder trying to imply he has zero responsibility at all in the forgery matter? It kind of sounds like it to me. Sorry Mr.s Snyder, as owner you do bare some responsibility.
Mr.Snyder would be well served to learn the art of not taking oneself too seriously. Learn to laugh at these things instead. I really doubt he can prove in court that he lost revenue due to a tarnished business reputation. I can hear him now, "yes your honor, due to this story coming out my empire is now only worth 1.5 billion instead of 2 billion. The City Paper story is at fault."

Spoof implies a parody or satire, not sure I'd classify that article as any sort of spoof.