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

[onedrop]

From Gawker:

According to several people with direct knowledge of the situation, Snyder's attorneys contacted [The Washington Post] last week and asked the newspaper to preserve e-mails between Post sports blogger Dan Steinberg and McKenna.

The attorneys said they intend to explore whether there was any agreement between McKenna and Steinberg to cross-promote McKenna's pieces on Snyder. Steinberg routinely links to sports content across the Web."

This could be the beginning of the end of electronic media like The Drudge Report.

what exactly does a site like the drudge report have to do with this?

[TK]

That' date=' my friend, is simply more hot air being tweeted and retweeted by team employees.

There honestly is not even a POSSIBLE "other side to the story" that could make this lawsuit anything but frivolous.[/quote']

Neither John Keim or myself are on the team's payroll, but thanks for playing.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

LOL - all of the incidents mentioned were either matters of public record or had already been reported by other news organizations. So if our owner is disputing previously published stories' date=' why didn't he sue those publishers originally? And if he's disputing the public record, then he's SOL.[/quote']

That's not what I said, though. It's easy to have a factual "foundation" for a structure of defamation. It may not be so much what he states in his articles as it is what he left out that matters, for example.

[jivelikenice]

I'd like to see Ted Leonsis succeed with one of his other two teams before we continue to feed the hype that he's a top owner in pro sports. In his defense, he gets an incomplete with the Bullets, but all he's shown us so far with the Caps is that his teams can underachieve with great talent. He might get it figured out, but so far he's not there yet.

The Caps have assembled talent that should allow them to be a consistent contender but I also believe the hype is a little overblown.

That being said i don't give a pass on the Wizards as he was a part owner for some time. In addition, his reaction to criticism on the Wizards seems to show that its getting under his skin.

[JPCreativelab]

That's not what I said, though. It's easy to have a factual "foundation" for a structure of defamation. It may not be so much what he states in his articles as it is what he left out that matters, for example.

yea, its like if i came on here and claimed that Califan peed all over my head...

but i left out the fact that i broke into his house and stuck my head in his toilet and would not remove it.

pretty significant info not given there, cause that would make me look crazy, and not like a victim.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

There's nothing in that piece, while written tongue-in-cheek, that wasn't true. He's made Skins fans miserable and has taken all the fun out of watching this team's games.

I think the question might also be was it really written "tongue in cheek"...

And again, I find it a bit arrogant for us to claim we already know all the facts about each of the instances to declare without hesitation that McKenna did nothing wrong. Why it's impossible for us to simply wait and hear all the facts on THIS case is beyond me. Do some of you guys have an extra Instant Gratification gene or something? lol (not directing that to you, stwasm, just so you know)

[dexter's manley]

That's not what I said, though. It's easy to have a factual "foundation" for a structure of defamation. It may not be so much what he states in his articles as it is what he left out that matters, for example.

Sorry, but no. You can't be successfully sued for what you left out of an article. You can be accused of shoddy, yellow journalism. But you can't be successfully sued - the laws are constructed to protect the first amendment rights of the publisher, especially when it comes to public figures like our owner.

He should really just move this franchise to China. It's where he clearly wants to operate it.

[The Tris]

I suspect that even if it comes out that this suit has merit, it will be dismissed, "because Snyder deserves it."

[Califan007 The Constipated]

yea, its like if i came on here and claimed that Califan peed all over my head...

but i left out the fact that i broke into his house and stuck my head in his toilet and would not remove it.

pretty significant info not given there, cause that would make me look crazy, and not like a victim.

And I'd do it again, dammit!! :mad:...Keep yer head out of my toilet, man!

---------- Post added February-2nd-2011 at 10:30 AM ----------

I suspect that even if it comes out that this suit has merit, it will be dismissed, "because Snyder deserves it."

Yeah, I'm sure there is a certain segment of our fan base who won't care if Snyder's lawsuit holds validity or merit...it won't change their stances. And there are probably a few fans who won't care if it's shown that Snyder's case is a joke...they won't change their stance on things, either. Which is why I think waiting to hear all sides of the story is absolutely the right thing to do. :yes:

[Dan T.]

Are there lies in McKenna's piece? I see only errrors of omission and absence of nuance. In so doing, he's painting the worst possble picture of Snyder that he can. To me it's sleazy, but it's not actionable.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The Caps have assembled talent that should allow them to be a consistent contender but I also believe the hype is a little overblown.

That being said i don't give a pass on the Wizards as he was a part owner for some time. In addition, his reaction to criticism on the Wizards seems to show that its getting under his skin.

I didn't realize he was part-owner, though I still give him the benefit of the doubt if he wasn't the majority owner. I agree though, I think the hype around Leonsis revolves around his luck in having the opportunity to draft one of the top 3 players in the sport. He still hasn't accomplished anything with the "talent" he's accumulated yet.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Sorry' date=' but no. You can't be successfully sued for what you left out of an article. You can be accused of shoddy, yellow journalism. But you can't be successfully sued - the laws are constructed to protect the first amendment rights of the publisher, especially when it comes to public figures like our owner.

He should really just move this franchise to China. It's where he clearly wants to operate it.[/quote']

When looking up the legal definition of "Defamation":

"An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.

Although defamation is primarily governed by state law, the First Amendment safeguards for freedom of speech and press limit state law. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 264 (1964); Masson, 501 U.S. at 510. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 (rejecting categorical exemption of all statements in form of opinion; statement that may imply verifiable assertion of fact is actionable).

To determine whether a statement implies a factual assertion, courts examine the totality of the circumstances in which it was made. First, they look at the statement in its broad context, which includes the general tenor of the entire work, the subject of the statements, the setting, and the format of the work. Next they turn to the specific context and content of the statements, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular situation. Finally, they inquire whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false."

(that last part particularly pertains to what I said earlier...that it's possible to have a "factual" foundation yet still have it legally considered "defamation". )

[The Tris]

Are there lies in McKenna's piece? I see only errrors of omission and absence of nuance. In so doing, he's painting the worst possble picture of Snyder that he can. To me it's sleazy, but it's not actionable.

To me, I am curious if the seized emails between DM and DS are going to be used to paint a picture of a deliberate, coordinated attempt to defame Snyder and/or the organization by multiple media outlets, and if there are indeed lies - some of the wrod of mouth stories that get published and assumed to be fact - then it makes sense why there was such action taken.

Not sure what that means, but I am going to hold off judgement until we see the full context.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Are there lies in McKenna's piece? I see only errrors of omission and absence of nuance. In so doing, he's painting the worst possble picture of Snyder that he can. To me it's sleazy, but it's not actionable.

Only Snyder would be able to know...and maybe he's able to prove that it's more than "nuance" at work.

[Boss_Hogg]

Are there lies in McKenna's piece? I see only errrors of omission and absence of nuance. In so doing, he's painting the worst possble picture of Snyder that he can. To me it's sleazy, but it's not actionable.

I have no idea,

obviously there must be some inaccurate reporting and not just insults.

[dexter's manley]

When looking up the legal definition of "Defamation":

"An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.

Although defamation is primarily governed by state law, the First Amendment safeguards for freedom of speech and press limit state law. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 264 (1964); Masson, 501 U.S. at 510. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 (rejecting categorical exemption of all statements in form of opinion; statement that may imply verifiable assertion of fact is actionable).

To determine whether a statement implies a factual assertion, courts examine the totality of the circumstances in which it was made. First, they look at the statement in its broad context, which includes the general tenor of the entire work, the subject of the statements, the setting, and the format of the work. Next they turn to the specific context and content of the statements, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular situation. Finally, they inquire whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false."

(that last part particularly pertains to what I said earlier...that it's possible to have a "factual" foundation yet still have it legally considered "defamation". )

Okay. From the parts you've highlighted I can only assume you agree with me.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Okay. From the parts you've highlighted I can only assume you agree with me.

Okay, from your response I can only assume that you don't quite understand the parts I highlighted.

[Rocky21]

That's what I was just saying as well :yes:

I don't think that would apply here, because McKenna was not attempting to be satirical or trying to make a point through exaggerated humor. He was presenting his articles as 100% bona fide fact and a serious dissection of Snyder the businessman.

I got you bro I was just commenting on your question as to whether there was any merit to a potential lawsuit claiming the article hurt Snyder either professionally or personally. The Supreme Court decision stated that the specific intent to inflict emotional harm on a public figure enjoyed no protection.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I got you bro I was just commenting on your question as to whether there was any merit to a potential lawsuit claiming the article hurt Snyder either professionally or personally. The Supreme Court decision stated that the specific intent to inflict emotional harm on a public figure enjoyed no protection.

yeah, that part I don't know yet...none of us here do, actually. And also, while opinion is protected, opinions implying a verifiable fact are not protected, either.

[dexter's manley]

Okay, from your response I can only assume that you don't quite understand the parts I highlighted.

Uh huh. I can tell you're not worth the time, but here's a parting tip: Re-read the portions you highlighted in the context of McKenna's piece. There is not a court in the country who would do anything but dismiss this suit outright.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Uh huh. I can tell you're not worth the time' date=' but here's a parting tip: Re-read the portions you highlighted in the context of McKenna's piece. There is not a court in the country who would do anything but dismiss this suit outright.[/quote']

I'm actually having some good discussions in this thread with people who don't have an anti-Snyder agenda, so your input won't be missed.

And your "parting tip" was laughable in how it just underscores that you aren't fully grasping what the highlighted parts are saying ...but I appreciate you doing that.

[Dan T.]

Can you imagine Dan Snyder publishing his email address and making it a stated goal to personally answer all fan emails? Ted Leonsis has done that. Can you imagine Dan Snyder sauntering through the concourse at intermission, chatting up fans? Leonsis does that. Can you imagine Dan Snyder refusing to sell tickets to fans with zip codes in the opponent's geographic area? Again, Leonsis has done that. Can you imagine Snyder calling in REGULARLY to a local sports radio station and taking on all questions? Leonsis again...

He's turned one franchise (the Caps) around through the draft after telling fans straightwforwardly that they would have to suffer through a rebuilding period, and now that he's taken over the Wizards, we'll see if he can do the same with them.

Leonsis has banked 50 times more fan goodwill than Snyder ever will.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Can you imagine Dan Snyder publishing his email address and making it a stated goal to personally answer all fan emails? Ted Leonsis has done that. Can you imagine Dan Snyder sauntering through the concourse at intermission, chatting up fans? Leonsis does that. Can you imagine Dan Snyder refusing to sell tickets to fans with zip codes in the opponent's geographic area? Again, Leonsis has done that. Can you imagine Snyder calling in REGULARLY to a local sports radio station and taking on all questions? Leonsis again...

He's turned one franchise (the Caps) around through the draft after telling fans straightwforwardly that they would have to suffer through a rebuilding period, and now that he's taken over the Wizards, we'll see if he can do the same with them.

Leonsis has banked 50 times more fan goodwill than Snyder ever will.

With the exception of the ticket sales to opposing fans (which was a great idea, by the way), I don't care about that other touchy-feely stuff. I'd prefer that the person running football (or hockey) operations be the one to interface with the radio stations and the fans. I want my owner to LITERALLY own the team and nothing more. Bruce Allen should be doing those things you mentioned, not Snyder (or Leonsis). In fact, I think Ted has gotten himself into a little hot water with his blogs lately hasn't he?

[elkabong82]

Good for Leonsis. But first off, that's hockey not football. Football has way more fans, meaning a lot more exposure. Leonsis made him self available once th tea was winning, and landing the best player in the game is a big help obviously.

Snyder is more exposed and has to establish a winning tradition, otherwise most of the time if he opens himself up to the public he'll mostly be met with the same hate and irrational level thereof as witnessed in this thread where people are going off on him, saying the team will never be good becuse of him (though he doesn;t control it now) and they haven't even heard his side of the story.

Leonsis deals with far more rational fans, he doesn't have to take on a large rabid fanbase that actually cares when the team loses.

Besides, what questions could Snyder answer? He's removed himself from day-to-day operations, per the fans request. We wanted a hands-off owner, but now you want him to becommenting on daily operation as frequently as Leonsis? How involved do we want him, because it seems the consensus wish on here was to not even hear from Dan.

[Dan T.]

Good for Leonsis. But first off, that's hockey not football. Football has way more fans, meaning a lot more exposure. Leonsis made him self available once th tea was winning, and landing the best player in the game is a big help obviously.

Snyder is more exposed and has to establish a winning tradition, otherwise most of the time if he opens himself up to the public he'll mostly be met with the same hate and irrational level thereof as witnessed in this thread where people are going off on him, saying the team will never be good becuse of him (though he doesn;t control it now) and they haven't even heard his side of the story.

Leonsis deals with far more rational fans, he doesn't have to take on a large rabid fanbase that actually cares when the team loses.

Besides, what questions could Snyder answer? He's removed himself from day-to-day operations, per the fans request. We wanted a hands-off owner, but now you want him to becommenting on daily operation as frequently as Leonsis? How involved do we want him, because it seems the consensus wish on here was to not even hear from Dan.

The point is that Leonsis, at least on the face of it, has a better feel for his fan base and is better positioned to give the fans what they want in terms of a game day experience and has a better dialogue with the fans about how the franchise is run. My sense is that Leonsis doesn't take the fans' loyalty for granted. Unlike Snyder.

But the underlying point may be that Snyder doesn't give a **** how he's viewed by the fans or the public. He has long insulated himself from "the little people" in so many ways. His disdain for the press is so blatantly obvious that it invites antagonism from journalists. You could argue that it's a chicken and egg question as to which came first, the bad press or his disdain for the press, but he's done nothing to mend that fence. Instead of bridge building, this lawsuit is a nuclear warhead dropped in the center lane.