<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;redskins&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:06:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Redskins Owner Dan Synder Realizes He Was Going To Lose His Defamation Lawsuit Badly, Drops It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/02395615901/redskins-owner-dan-synder-realizes-he-was-going-to-lose-his-defamation-lawsuit-badly-drops-it.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/02395615901/redskins-owner-dan-synder-realizes-he-was-going-to-lose-his-defamation-lawsuit-badly-drops-it.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember Dan Snyder?  The much-maligned owner of the Washington Redskins who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/01253512962/redskins-owner-sues-local-paper-over-satirical-listing-grievances-making-sure-more-people-read-it.shtml">sued a small newspaper</a> for running a clearly satirical article about him?  The same owner of the Washington <i>Redskins</i> who also argued that a picture of him accompanying that article that added scribbled devil horns and goatee was somehow antisemitic?  The lawsuit alone <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110209/02015113019/dan-snyder-helps-us-demonstrate-streisand-effect-numbers.shtml">massively increased attention</a> to the article and its jokes about Snyder.  Just last week, even Snyder finally admitted that it was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/magazine/redskins-owner-dan-snyder-on-being-a-marked-man.html?_r=4" target="_blank">"possibly"</a> a tactical error to sue.
<br /><br />
Well, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=verve94">Verve</a> lets us know that <a href="http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/capital-games/Snyder-Dismisses-City-Paper-Lawsuit-129596853.html" target="_blank">Snyder has finally dropped the lawsuit</a>, most likely because someone finally explained to him that he had almost no chance of winning, and not only would he lose in court, but the longer the case went on, the worse the public relations nightmare would be.  It's pretty funny that he's claiming that he's doing this "to focus on the coming football season and the business at hand."  Yeah, and not losing massively in court, for which you might have had to pay Washington City Paper's legal fees as well.
<br /><br />
Amusingly, Snyder also declares -- against pretty much all evidence -- that he's been "vindicated" in filing the lawsuit, because Washington City Paper:
<blockquote><i>
"admitted that certain assertions contained in the article that are the subject of the lawsuit were, in fact, unintended by the defendants to be read literally as true."
</i></blockquote>
Um.  That's not vindication of the lawsuit.  That's WCP explaining what everyone else in the world already knew: the article was <i>satire</i>, designed to make fun of Snyder.  Saying that the points weren't all meant to be read literally as true isn't an <b>admission</b>.  It's pointing out that Snyder is apparently unable to comprehend basic satire.
<br /><br />
WCP, for its part, says that it's happy the case has been dismissed, and while it could use DC anti-SLAPP laws to go after legal fees, it'd rather the case just be over.  Of course, one good thing about all this happening in Washington DC?  It's really helped some folks in Congress realize that we need a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/12583214529/dan-snyder-helping-politicians-recognize-importance-federal-anti-slapp-law.shtml">federal anti-SLAPP law</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/02395615901/redskins-owner-dan-synder-realizes-he-was-going-to-lose-his-defamation-lawsuit-badly-drops-it.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/02395615901/redskins-owner-dan-synder-realizes-he-was-going-to-lose-his-defamation-lawsuit-badly-drops-it.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/02395615901/redskins-owner-dan-synder-realizes-he-was-going-to-lose-his-defamation-lawsuit-badly-drops-it.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-what-we-call-a-punt</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110912/02395615901</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Washington DC Football Team Who Shall Remain Nameless Won't Let Blogs Use Name Without Permission</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/13020313513/washington-dc-football-team-who-shall-remain-nameless-wont-let-blogs-use-name-without-permission.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/13020313513/washington-dc-football-team-who-shall-remain-nameless-wont-let-blogs-use-name-without-permission.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's an NFL football team in Washington DC, which is nominally called the Washington Redskins.  You see what I did there?  I mentioned the name... because that's how you identify them.  Yet, the team -- which under the ownership of Dan Snyder has become about as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0042326099.shtml">anti-fan</a> and as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100925/12004911166/washington-redskins-trying-to-silence-beat-reporters-on-social-media.shtml">ridiculously over-aggressive</a> in trying to  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/0110566471.shtml">control the media</a> as a team can be -- has taken it to yet another level.  Reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=karm">karm</a> points us to the news that the Washington Post has had to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/why-redskins-insider-lost-its-name/2011/03/15/AB755AX_blog.html" target="_blank">change the name of its blog from <i>Redskins Insider</i> to <i>Football Insider</i></a>, due to threats from the Washington Football Team Who Shall Henceforth Remain Nameless.
<br><br>
What really surprises me is that the Washington Post caved.  Doesn't the Washington Post have access to trademark lawyers there who can respond to the team and point out that the team has <i>no case</i> whatsoever?  There's no moron in a hurry anywhere who's going to see the Washington Post's blog and think "gee, that's 'sponsored' or 'endorsed' by the team."  The team claims that it wants to be able to license out the name, such as to the official sports broadcast partner.  Of course, it can still do an exclusive deal for broadcast rights, but it has no right to block the use of the name when its being used in a descriptive and non-confusing manner here.
<br><br>
Once again, this is an incredibly anti-fan move.  Take pretty much any major sports team, and it's not hard to find blogs that make use of the team's name.  And those teams survive just fine.  They recognize that there's no confusion and that these blogs help draw in more fans for the team.  This seems like incredibly short-term thinking by Snyder's Washington Football Team Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken, but that seems like par for the course.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/13020313513/washington-dc-football-team-who-shall-remain-nameless-wont-let-blogs-use-name-without-permission.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/13020313513/washington-dc-football-team-who-shall-remain-nameless-wont-let-blogs-use-name-without-permission.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/13020313513/washington-dc-football-team-who-shall-remain-nameless-wont-let-blogs-use-name-without-permission.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-job-washington-football-team</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110315/13020313513</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:30:05 PST</pubDate>
<title>Redskins Owner Sues Local Paper Over Satirical Listing Of Grievances... Making Sure More People Read It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/01253512962/redskins-owner-sues-local-paper-over-satirical-listing-grievances-making-sure-more-people-read-it.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/01253512962/redskins-owner-sues-local-paper-over-satirical-listing-grievances-making-sure-more-people-read-it.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked about the ridiculous management of the Washington Redskins a few times before.  This is the football team that took the extraordinary step of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0042326099.shtml">suing a bunch of fans</a> who, due to the economic crisis, were unable to pay for season tickets they had ordered.  While most other teams simply take back the tickets and find other buyers, the Redskins sued over 100 such fans (probably ex-fans now).  The team has also been extremely aggressive in terms of what it requires of reporters, including trying to claim that posting photos of disgruntled fans <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/0110566471.shtml">was prohibited</a> and creating "media guidelines" that seriously <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100925/12004911166/washington-redskins-trying-to-silence-beat-reporters-on-social-media.shtml">stifle</a> what reporters can talk about, if they want to continue to be given any access to the team.
<br /><br />
The latest situation is even more extreme.  The team's owner, Dan Snyder, appears to be the subject of much displeasure among Redskins fans.  There are lots of fans of lots of sports teams who dislike the ownership.  However, I don't think I've ever heard the level of dislike towards an owner like the publicly expressed feelings many fans have towards Dan Snyder.  The local Washington City Paper has, of course, played up on this general dislike of Snyder, and back in November published an amusing <a href="http://mirror.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder.html" target="_blank">Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder</a>, which includes an A to Z listing of "offenses."  You see this kind of column all the time about various sports owners.  And most ignore it.
<br /><br />
But not Dan Snyder.
<br /><br />
He had his lawyers send a threat letter not to Washington City Paper, but to Atalaya Capital Management, the investment firm that owns Creative Loafing, which is the company that publishes Washington City Paper.  Got that?  Atalaya pointed out that they have nothing to do with the management of the paper -- and especially have nothing to do with the content of the paper, but even so, sent back a wonderful letter explaining the basics of the First Amendment to Snyder, especially with regards to public figures.  The full letter is embedded below (and worth the read), but a few choice snippets:
<blockquote><i>
The purpose of this letter is not to correct each of your misstatements and mischaracterizations but rather to assert the media's First Amendment right to comment on public figures (which your client undeniably is) and matters of public interest (into which your client voluntarily injected himself through his prominent ownership of the Washington Redskins).
<br /><br />
The Column plainly is a tongue-in-cheek opinion piece expressing fans' frustration with your client's ownership of the Redskins.  This is quintessential First Amendment-protected speech.  Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that "one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.  Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks."
</i></blockquote>
The letter also highlights that Atalaya had been informed by the paper that it was more than happy to allow Mr. Snyder the ability to respond in the pages of its publication.
<br /><br />
Snyder, apparently, decided not to pay much heed to this letter, as he <a href="http://mirror.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2011/02/02/snyder-sues.html" target="_blank">proceeded with the lawsuit</a> (full suit embedded below), in which he makes a number of claims.  Now, there certainly were some statements that were made in the original article that, if untrue, could be defamatory.  However, some of the claims were just downright crazy.  The most ridiculous, of course, is his decision to claim that the illustration that accompanied the original article (shown below) was somehow anti-semitic.
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/zMl6i.png" />
</center>
Yeah, that's a photo of Dan Snyder with a scribbling of devil horns and facial hair.  I'm not sure how a childish scribbling to make someone look like the devil is anti-semitic.  And that's because it's not.  At all.  And Snyder is being <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/02/oh-cut-the-crap-simon-wiesenthal-center/70735/" target="_blank">widely mocked</a> for thinking otherwise.
<br /><br />
Of course, the even bigger issue is that in bringing this lawsuit, you can bet that a hell of a lot more people have now seen the original article totally trashing Dan Snyder.  If his goal was to suppress this content, then he's failed badly (yet again).  On top of that, a lot more folks now think that Snyder has an incredibly thin skin.  I would also imagine that Snyder will not enjoy any actual legal fight, in which the various assertions about him in that original column are dragged into court and examined for accuracy.  Even if there are libelous statements in there, is Snyder really interested in going through a courtroom analysis of each of the claims in the column?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/01253512962/redskins-owner-sues-local-paper-over-satirical-listing-grievances-making-sure-more-people-read-it.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/01253512962/redskins-owner-sues-local-paper-over-satirical-listing-grievances-making-sure-more-people-read-it.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/01253512962/redskins-owner-sues-local-paper-over-satirical-listing-grievances-making-sure-more-people-read-it.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hello-ms.-streisand</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110204/01253512962</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:10:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Not To Do Things: Redskins Suing Over 100 Fans</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0042326099.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0042326099.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been talking about ways that individuals and organizations can better connect with fans... while also highlighting examples of what <i>not</i> to do, so it should come as little surprise that many of you sent over the news that the Washington Redskins <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090203887_pf.html" target="_new">have sued well over 100 season ticket holders</a>, after those fans faced financial hardship and were unable to pay up for new season tickets, despite having signed long-term contracts at some point.  The article is long and detailed, and reading through the examples, the Redskins management appears about as heartless as can be.  The Redskins chief lawyer tries to come up with excuses on each case, and it just makes the team look petty.  Even worse, is that he claims that every team does this, but the Washington Post found most of the teams they contacted <i>do not</i>, and the few that do, only do so in the rarest of circumstances.
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, the local baseball team, the Nationals, refuses to sue fans, and notes that it's pretty simple to deal with people who fail to live up to their contract: you take away their tickets and resell them.  And, just for comparison purposes, we're talking about the Nationals, who are averaging one of the <a href="http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&#038;view=article&#038;id=3184:how-low-can-you-go-washington-nationals-attendance&#038;catid=56:ticket-watch&#038;Itemid=136" target="_new">lowest average attendance rates</a> in all of baseball.  Compare that to the Redskins, who have a stunning record of <a href="http://www.profootballhof.com/history/team.aspx?franchise_id=32" target="_blank">selling out <b>every</b> home game since 1968</a>.  In other words, if anyone had a reason to go after those not paying, it would be the Nationals.  The Redskins can <i>easily</i> resell the tickets.
<br /><br />
And... actually, it <i>is</i> reselling those tickets for a nice profit while <i>still</i> collecting huge cash awards from those who couldn't pay -- some of whom are now declaring bankruptcy and blaming the team they used to love.  On top of that, there are suggestions in the article that the Redskins used surreptitious (and potentially illegal) tactics to trick some fans into signing long term contracts when they thought they were signing yearly contracts.  In at least one case, it appears that the team checked off a box for a fan, committing him to six years.  In other cases, the team appears to be totally heartless.  For example, the team was informed that a delinquent fan was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic -- and two months later they sued him.
<br /><br />
If you want a lesson in how not to treat fans, check out the Redskins.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0042326099.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0042326099.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0042326099.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that'll-convince-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090904/0042326099</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>