Dan Snyder Helping Politicians Recognize The Importance Of A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law

from the thanks-dan... dept

We’ve discussed a few times in the past the need for a federal anti-SLAPP law, rather than the weak state-by-state laws against SLAPP lawsuits, which are filed mainly to stifle speech, rather than for any legitimate purpose. Earlier this year, in particular, we discussed how the lawsuit filed by Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder against a DC-publication, highlighted the need for a federal anti-SLAPP law. If you don’t recall, Washington City Paper ran a silly anti-Snyder article that was clearly tongue in cheek. It’s standard fans-bashing-ownership fare, which was mildly amusing if you were a Redskins fan. Rather than letting it pass, Snyder sued. Oddly, he sued in New York, leading to speculation that he was trying to avoid anti-SLAPP issues, despite everyone involved being in DC and/or Maryland — both of which have stronger anti-SLAPP laws. Eventually, he did refile the suit closer to home, but the whole thing has convinced at least one lawmaker to move forward on a federal anti-SLAPP statute. In fact, Rep. Steve Cohen wrote an article claiming that Snyder’s actions, in an attempt to stifle the speech of reporters critical of himself, is a big part of what’s convinced him of the need for such a law, which is being dubbed the PETITION Act (“Protecting the Expression and Transmission of Ideas and Thoughts In Our Nation Act” — ugh, so sick of these kinds of names):

The City Paper?s column was admittedly harsh but well within the bounds of free speech, especially about a public figure. Snyder was understandably angry, but instead of fighting speech with more speech, he chose to use the courts for his personal revenge. Whatever you may think of Snyder and the Redskins, the courts are not the appropriate forum for resolving these sorts of grudges.

Snyder’s own attorney seemed to acknowledge the true intention of his lawsuit in a letter to the hedge fund that owns the newspaper, the original object of his suit. He wrote: “Mr. Snyder has more than sufficient means to protect his reputation and defend himself and his wife against your paper’s concerted attempt at character assassination. We presume defending such litigation would not be a rational strategy for an investment firm such as yours. Indeed, the cost of litigation would presumably quickly outstrip the value of the Washington City Paper.”

This is exactly what SLAPPs are all about. They are used to silence and harass critics by forcing them to spend countless time and resources defending against them. SLAPPs use the courts as a weapon to stifle participation in government and chill expression about matters of public interest.

Great to see renewed interest in a federal anti-SLAPP law (though, the details do matter). And, for that, we can thank Dan Snyder.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Dan Snyder Helping Politicians Recognize The Importance Of A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Actually, as a long suffering Redskins fan I find it hard to imagine that one could conceivably assassinate his character. He is a reviled douchebag in his own community whose conquest for football respectability leads him to endlessly sign marquee players in decline in the hopes of buying a Superbowl. The time-honored methodology is to build from the bottom up through the draft, but Snyder continuously meddles in football operations he knows nothing about- likely dooming the Redskins to the same esteem as the Detroit Lions for the remainder of his miserable life.

dwg says:

SLAPPing back, too...

California, for one, has an additional statute that protects against bogus anti-SLAPP motions. When the anti-SLAPP law was passed, every corporation that engaged in any kind of unethical or anti-competitive behavior, or (and especially) false advertising) all of a sudden tried to claim that these acts were in furtherance of their First Amendment rights. So the California legislature passed CCP 425.17, which allows motions to be brought against spurious anti-SLAPP motions, and allows the prevailing party to recover fees and costs on the motion.

Man, those Californians think of everything.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...