WP: Redskins owner Dan Snyder seeks dismissal of City Paper writer (Update: Links to court papers included)

[Dan T.]

.

The only thing our moronic owner accomplishes with this stunt - believe me' date=' the ONLY thing - is that millions more people will read McKenna's outstanding article.

[/quote']

at "outstanding."

Lets take McKenna's article for what it is - a complete hatchet job. It's a hit piece from a guy with a built-in agenda writing for an alternative weekly whose mandate is to be edgy and outrageous. Nobody's nominating McKenna for a Pulitzer.

That said, it doesn't make Snyder's reaction any wiser. The biggest effect of Snyder's petulant temper tantrum is for McKenna's "article" to get national attention.

[SiestaBob]

What are trying to say.

[RFKFedEx]

Sorry Dexter, but there's no way the league can take the team from him. But I'm with you on blowing this up is big as possible during SB week.

Sports talk radio stations on the row down in Dallas this week should get a few chuckles out of this if nothing else.

[Dan T.]

And Dave McKenna must be loving this. With all this publicity he just may go from "Dave who?" to the go-to guy whenever the media needs an expert on Snyder's past transgressions.

[Rocky21]

I just wish Snyder was half as good at owning an NFL organization as he is at getting people to dislike him. He is a PR nightmare, especially for a guy who made his money in communications.

For the longest time folks wondered exactly what kind of business Snyder Communications was. Some time later we found out it they were the company that interrupted your dinner and tried to get you to switch long distance phone carriers. In Florida they had to pay a $3 million dollar fine for forging customers' signatures. The practice is known as Slamming.

And yeah the GEICO sign thing mentioned above was particularly galling. Fans can't bring signs to the stadium that are derogatory of ownership because of safety reasons but when a sponsor is greasing the owner's pocket signs are A-OK.

[KokoMike]

Extremeskins is owned by the Washington Redskins. It is like a town square in a country with much unrest and distrust. People will protest, and then be attacked from the hidden corners. Ultimately, authoritarian actions are taken. But, the unrest continues.

I dream of a day when my beloved Redskins can be respected by all again. How I long for those days again. Those days really did exist, as the Redskins were once, not so long ago, one of the most respected franchises in all sports.

[Stugein]

If the article states a verifiable untruth about Dan Snyder as fact, then he has every right to take action to have it dealt with. And no, you can't always hide behind phrasing like "alleged" and "so-and-so said". Some of those allegations are pretty serious. If they are indeed all fact though, then someone needs to get Snyder his binky and send him to time out.

[SiestaBob]

You are right on. This paper needs to look at itself and the hate it puts out. What a shame people have to be so hateful.

[Dan T.]

Extremeskins is owned by the Washington Redskins. It is like a town square in a country with much unrest and distrust. People will protest, and then be attacked from the hidden corners. Ultimately, authoritarian actions are taken. But, the unrest continues.

The second part of this sounds like you are talking out of your ass. But please explain further. Because if you are intimating that mods stifle dissent here, you are parroting false charges that Dave McKenna himself has made in his column in the past.

[dexter's manley]

Sorry Dexter, but there's no way the league can take the team from him. But I'm with you on blowing this up is big as possible during SB week.

Sports talk radio stations on the row down in Dallas this week should get a few chuckles out of this if nothing else.

MLB took the Reds from Marge Schott, and came thisclose to taking the Yanks from Steinbrenner in the wake of the Dave Winfield scandal.

Not saying this incident is one that would force such a drastic move. Just saying that there's a pattern developing here - and if Snyder's rage at the negative articles (most of which he fully deserves) erupts into something more serious than a lawsuit, the league may need to step in.

And I'm sorry - McKenna's piece was perfect. OF COURSE it was a hatchet job. But it was perfectly executed, reported and factually accurate down to its last detail. Anyone who knows the first thing about journalism and the first ammendment knows that: Snyder. Has. No. Case.

What's amazing is that no one on his staff - all of whom presumably KNOW how seriously misguided this action is - has the stones to actually tell him that. More proof of the insane, toxic culture that exists within this organization.

[Elessar78]

I dream of a day when my beloved Redskins can be respected by all again. How I long for those days again. Those days really did exist, as the Redskins were once, not so long ago, one of the most respected franchises in all sports.

I don't. Any success, while good for us fans, gives credence to the way Snyder has "lead" this franchise.

[Boss_Hogg]

Snyder has defamed himself more than Dave McKenna ever has.

Snyder should sue himself.

[dexter's manley]

One more thing: This thing is already blowing up on twitter, which is a very bad thing for Snyder.

How can anyone argue that this man has been anything but a disaster for this team, franchise and community?

[addicted]

How can anyone argue that this man has been anything but a disaster for this team' date=' franchise and community?[/quote']

Problem is Washington's right next to Baltimore. Baltimore's the city which used to be the home of the Colts who was owned by a guy that the media and public hated. And because of his dislike to the people and press that owner decided to move his team to Indy. Is this what we are going to come to? One day the Redskins will be like the Colts and gone from Washington forever? It starting to seem that way to me, but at least the man was a fan of the team in his childhood. At least we have that. I hope if the thought ever crosses his mind he decides to sell the team first. That would be a move all of us could be happy with

[dexter's manley]

Amazing that from what I can tell there hasn't been one mention of this story on ESPN 980 at all today It's only the biggest sports story of the day concerning the region's most popular team.

Oh wait. Never mind.

[Boss_Hogg]

I really doubt the NFL could take away the franchise from Dan Snyder

Although it would be nice.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

This right here.

I have very little respect for McKenna. Unfortunately Snyder just made himself out to be an even pettier (I hate to use this word) douche than McKenna is, which is no easy task. McKenna doesn't deserve the attention this article is going to give him, but Snyder just can't help himself I suppose.

What if McKenna's articles have hurt Snyder either professionally or personally? We all like to act as if only three semi-illiterate morons read his stuff, so there are supposedly no consequences from letting him continue writing his "articles" and the only result of this lawsuit is giving McKenna a bigger audience. But what if there really are some negative consequences (I mean other than a bruised ego) that Snyder and his lawyers feel are a direct result of McKenna's agenda hit pieces?

If so, then either we say Snyder deserves the negative consequences because everything in the articles are accurate and factual...or we say McKenna and the company that employs him deserve to be held accountable because his articles are not accurate, contain factual errors and seem to be part of a public smear campaign.

[Boss_Hogg]

Problem is Washington's right next to Baltimore. Baltimore's the city which used to be the home of the Colts who was owned by a guy that the media and public hated. And because of his dislike to the people and press that owner decided to move his team to Indy. Is this what we are going to come to? One day the Redskins will be like the Colts and gone from Washington forever?

If they leave the name, colors, and Superbowl trophies then I'm okay with that.

If we can start over AKA Cleveland Browns then I'm okay if Snyder wants to move the team to LA.

[dexter's manley]

Problem is Washington's right next to Baltimore. Baltimore's the city which used to be the home of the Colts who was owned by a guy that the media and public hated. And because of his dislike to the people and press that owner decided to move his team to Indy. Is this what we are going to come to? One day the Redskins will be like the Colts and gone from Washington forever?

This would be a great thing. You think the NFL would let one season pass without a team in Washington? We'd have a replacement franchise before Snyder's trucks hit the beltway - and we'd all be better off for it.

[addicted]

MLB took the Reds from Marge Schott' date=' and came thisclose to taking the Yanks from Steinbrenner in the wake of the Dave Winfield scandal.[/quote']

That's baseball. I can't see this league doing that. If they were capable it would have already happened with the Colts or the Browns but the commissioner be it Tagliabue or the Goodell aren't going to not side with the owners here.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

This would be a great thing. You think the NFL would let one season pass without a team in Washington? We'd have a replacement franchise before Snyder's trucks hit the beltway - and we'd all be better off for it.

I love how everyone just assumes that a new owner would be all rainbows, flowers and unicorns and all skins fans would sing in agreement about how wonderful the new ownership is lol ...

[addicted]

This would be a great thing. You think the NFL would let one season pass without a team in Washington? We'd have a replacement franchise before Snyder's trucks hit the beltway - and we'd all be better off for it.

Due to the politics of the town I can't see the league not insisting that a team be here. I doubt it could go down that quickly but its a possibility for sure. I'm wondering if this is where this is headed? Anyone else see this or just my crazy mind acting up again?

---------- Post added February-2nd-2011 at 11:52 AM ----------

I love how everyone just assumes that a new owner would be all rainbows' date=' flowers and unicorns and all skins fans would sing in agreement about how wonderful the new ownership is lol ...[/quote']

Great point, is it better to deal with the Devil you know or the one you don't? As much as we want to think a change would be for the better it's possible it could actually be worse

[Rocky21]

What if McKenna's articles have hurt Snyder either professionally or personally? We all like to act as if only three semi-illiterate morons read his stuff, so there are supposedly no consequences from letting him continue writing his "articles" and the only result of this lawsuit is giving McKenna a bigger audience. But what if there really are some negative consequences (I mean other than a bruised ego) that Snyder and his lawyers feel are a direct result of McKenna's agenda hit pieces?

If so, then either we say Snyder deserves the negative consequences because everything in the articles are accurate and factual...or we say McKenna and the company that employs him deserve to be held accountable because his articles are not accurate, contain factual errors and seem to be part of a public smear campaign.

From The Supreme Court's ruling on Falwell vs. Hustler Magazine.

To be sure, in other areas of the law, the specific intent to inflict emotional harm enjoys no protection. But with respect to speech concerning public figures, penalizing the intent to inflict emotional harm, without also requiring that the speech that inflicts that harm to be false, would subject political cartoonists and other satirists to large damage awards. "The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events – an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal". This was certainly true of the cartoons of Thomas Nast, who skewered Boss Tweed in the pages of Harper's Weekly. From a historical perspective, political discourse would have been considerably poorer without such cartoons.

Even if Nast's cartoons were not particularly offensive, Falwell argued that the Hustler parody advertisement in this case was so "outrageous" as to take it outside the scope of First Amendment protection. But "outrageous" is an inherently subjective term, susceptible to the personal taste of the jury empaneled to decide a case. Such a standard "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience". So long as the speech at issue is not "obscene" and thus not subject to First Amendment protection, it should be subject to the actual-malice standard when it concerns public figures.

Clearly, Falwell was a public figure for purposes of First Amendment law. Because the district court found in favor of Flynt on the libel charge, there was no dispute as to whether the parody could be understood as describing actual facts about Falwell or events in which he participated. Accordingly, because the parody did not make false statements that were implied to be true, it could not be the subject of damages under the New York Times actual-malice standard. The Court thus reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.

[dexter's manley]

I love how everyone just assumes that a new owner would be all rainbows, flowers and unicorns and all skins fans would sing in agreement about how wonderful the new ownership is lol ...

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. But no one is saying that a new owner would bring utopia. What I am saying is that a new owner could not possibly be worse than Dan Snyder. He or she just couldn't. The treatment of the fans ... it is simply hard to imagine that it could be worse.

[The Tris]

I curious why everyone assumes Synder is oblivious of the public blow back on this issue...after a decade of knowing this town and media, I'd be shocked if he didn't.

This leads me to assume that he and the organization feel strongly enough (and have a strong enough case) to absorb the initial blow back to press forward with this issue.

I am dying to know what the other side of the story is.

@TKextremeskins RT @john_keim: #Redskins Comm Dir Tony Wyllie on Snyder/WCP issue: "We won't put up w/lies. Once it's filed everyone will know the truth."