dan snyder – Techdirt (original) (raw)
Stories filed under: "dan snyder"
Redskins, Who Should Get To Keep Their Racist Name, Still Jerks For Running Fake Grassroots Support Website
from the jerkskins dept
As we’ve previously discussed the trademark issues surrounding the Washington Redskins team name, and as I’ve personally flip-flopped on the question like I was running for public office to represent salmon on a dry dock, none of that coverage has ever called into question that the team is run by some number of jackasses. Dan Snyder, who owns the team, has gone out of his way to attack all kinds of media and blogs over coverage of the team and its antics. Well, back on the name of the team, even if they got a big gift from a court in a related lawsuit, it turns out the team has been engaging in a bit of subterfuge to try to drum up support for the mascot as well.
But, thanks in part to an errant tweet, the team has been found out. Fans of the team and its name may recognize the Twitter account “Redskins Facts”, which purports to be a grassroots conglomeration of fans that back the name of the team.
Redskins Facts is supposedly a grassroots organization aiming to create support for a mascot named after scalping Native Americans. However, it is run by a PR firm, not fans, and the team has carefully skirted around precisely designating it as independent. As SBNation points out, the Washington Post fact-checked the site’s claims and found them misleading.
While Washington was in a close game with Chicago, some suspicious tweeting went down. These two tweets, sent from two purportedly different organizations that have no affiliation with each other, look pretty similar. Given the exact similarities between the two tweets, this is almost certainly a copy/paste job.
— Dan Steinberg (@dcsportsbog) December 13, 2015
Oops. While many have long suspected that the PR firm running the Twitter account had been hired to do so by the team, because there isn’t another logical explanation that would make any sense, this copy/paste job between the team’s official account and the “Redskins Facts” account seems to confirm it quite nicely. The Redskins Facts website, indeed, has an entire “About Us” section that is nothing short of a series of misleading claims that would probably be more appropriately called lies.
So, even as the legal side of things is going to end up leaving the Redskins to trademark its dumb, racist team name, the fact that the team pulls these kinds of antics ought not be lost in the meantime.
Filed Under: astrotufing, dan snyder, grassroots, pr, redskins, redskins facts, trademark
Companies: washington redskins
USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins
from the finally dept
Given that I’ve been quite vocal about my interest in the Washington NFL team changing its name from the disparaging “Redskins” moniker to something more civil, you might think that I’m doing some kind of happy dance in my office now that the USPTO has rescinded the trademark registration for the team (something I had predicted, along with others, a while back). Look, I won’t pretend like any steps moving us closer to a world where that team’s name is changed don’t make me happy, but I do take the counterpoints seriously. I don’t particularly care for a world where speech deemed “offensive” can’t be uttered, nor do I generally like when the government sticks its nose in most things. I understand that completely — I just think there are some serious arguments for ensuring the government doesn’t grant exclusive rights to organizations on the backs of horribly racist terms. So when the USPTO says they’re removing the registration because the term is disparaging and they don’t want to grant rights for the team to seek trademark damages to that kind of language in all of our names, I happen to think that make sense.
“We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,” the board wrote in its opinion, which is here.
Again, if you think this is yet another example of government’s intrusion on free enterprise, I get where you’re coming from. After all, damn it, we wouldn’t need to have come to this point if the citizens of D.C. had risen up and refused to go to games until the name was changed. That would have been a far preferable solution. That said, the provision in trademark law forbidding marks of a racial nature is fairly clear and I think there’s fairly good reason for that language. As plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse said:
“I am extremely happy that the [Board] ruled in our favor,” Blackhorse said in a statement. “It is a great victory for Native Americans and for all Americans. We filed our petition eight years ago and it has been a tough battle ever since. I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed. The team’s name is racist and derogatory. I’ve said it before and I will say it again – if people wouldn’t dare call a Native American a ‘redskin’ because they know it is offensive, how can an NFL football team have this name?”
This ruling isn’t only in the name of being politically correct to Native Americans, it’s about a government office that purports to represent all of us granting exclusive rights based on language that an overwhelming majority of outlets define as racist. The public can and does have an interest in how government represents us and granting trademark to that kind of term just isn’t okay.
Now, before anyone gets their First Amendment panties in a twist here, the team doesn’t lose the right to use the name and even keeps its registered mark during the appeals process, which has already begun.
The team will almost certainly appeal the case, and it will be able to keep its trademark protection during appeal. Losing the trademark would not force the team to change its name, but it would allow anyone who wanted to use “Redskins” on merchandise or through other means to do so, which could cost the team — and, because of the NFL’s revenue-sharing model, other NFL teams — “every imaginable loss you can think of,” as the team’s lawyers argued in the original case. For that reason, the trademark has long been thought of by opponents of the team’s name as the easiest avenue to changing it.
If Dan Snyder, a man who has filed lawsuits claiming anti-semitism, wants to stick to his racist guns and keep the team name, he can. He just doesn’t get the ability to seek damages that a registered mark affords him. Speech is actually opened up by this ruling, not infringed upon. In other words, for those of you that think the team name is awesome and/or the USPTO shouldn’t be getting involved in this, all is not lost. The racist term you wish to protect can still be used by the team if it wishes, it’s just that those of us who think the government shouldn’t be sanctioning that kind of thing are finally being represented.
Filed Under: dan snyder, free speech, redskins, trademark, uspto, washington redskins
Companies: washington redskins
Dan Snyder Sends C&D Letter To Former Redskins Player For Using A Picture Of Himself
from the fumble dept
We’ve spent some time here at Techdirt trying to warn you about Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins NFL team and likely replicant. Between his battling to keep a racist team name, attempts to murder satire in the press, using intellectual property law to disappear his team’s name from the blogosphere, and generally acting like an entitled brat, you may have thought that he and his band of merry lawyers couldn’t sink much lower.
Will writes in to correct anyone suffering under this mistaken belief with a story about Dan Snyder’s lawyers going after one of the team’s best former players for the crime of using a picture of himself.
Dan Snyder is just the worst, and his worstness reared its head once more yesterday when he sent a cease and desist letter to former Redskins great LaVar Arrington, demanding that Arrington stop calling himself a Redskins great. Word of the cease and desist first came from Arrington himself, who went on a bit of a Twitter rant yesterday.
While the reporting of the details here is all coming from Arrington’s side, the issue appears to be slightly different than reported above. While there may have been a request to stop using the Redskin name in Arrington’s flyer for his football camp, the chief issue appears to surround a picture of Arrington that was also on the flyer, which itself seems to have been taken at an NFL game in which Arrington is wearing his former Redskins uniform.
Arguing over that nuance is a bit beside the point, however, because the point is: what the hell is the matter with these people? Have we really entered an era in which using a picture of oneself and describing yourself as having played for a team, which is a factual statement, are now actionable items? And even if they are, what the hell is the team getting out of pissing off a former player who is well-loved by their own fanbase?
That said, since Snyder’s folks haven’t really demonstrated much of an understanding of the Streisand Effect in the past, it’s no surprise to see that Arrington is using the threat as a promotional tool.
@LaVarArrington:
Hey @Redskins instead of being so petty about things you should’ve had your entire defense sign up for the camp #truth
Here we go, Redskins, here we go (again). Clap, clap.
Filed Under: dan snyder, lavar arrington, photographs, publicity rights, redskins
Finally, We Have Proof That The Washington Redskins Are Run By Replicants
from the paging-rick-deckhard dept
Yeah, I get it, with great claims must come great evidence, and you’re thinking there’s no way I can prove that Dan Snyder and the people who run the Washington Redskins are androids from Tyrell Corp. as seen in the Blade Runner movies. But think about it. Thiiiiiink about it, people. How are we told we can identify replicants, bio-android robots that are nearly indistinguishable from honest to goodness human beings? Well, as anyone who knows the mythology will tell you, “skin-jobs” are known for being unable to have true empathy and for their lack of emotional response. For the former, one need only combine the history of the Washington Redskins’ inappropriate name and their inability to recognize the rights of those around them to comment on the team. As for emotional responses, it’s a bit trickier. How do you demonstrate someone’s lack of emotion without strapping them down and properly performing the Voight-Kampff test?
Here’s how: you create a humorous parody of the team and their play, find out that the Redskins are threatening to sue as a result, and then explain to them, “Hey, guys, it was just a joke.” Then, when the legal team for the Redskins drops their threats as a result, claiming they weren’t aware all was done in jest, you’ve proven they are unable to produce the human emotion of humor. Boom, replicants. And, no, I’m not exaggerating.
The Skins were up in arms over a series of mock game broadcasts aired by WJFK, a CBS affiliate and direct rival to the Snyder-owned ESPN affiliate. They’re critical of the team, the owner, and the unincorporated hellhole that is FedEx Field (listen to Monday’s fake Giants-Redskins play-by-play for a taste), but they’re obviously, obviously fake. Note to Snyder, and everyone really: If the guy doing a bit is a comedian, it might be comedy.
Yet attorney Tony Wyllie, who works directly for team owner Dan Snyder, threatened the CBS affiliate, saying the obvious parody was malicious. He threatened a lawsuit. Then he rescinded the threat. Why?
Wyllie’s anger over the broadcasts prompted Chris Kinard, WJFK’s program director, to call time out. He met with Wyllie on Tuesday to discuss the comedy routines. Kinard declined to comment, but Wyllie insisted after the meeting that peace was at hand.
“All we did was ask questions about what they were doing,” he said in an interview. “Once they said it was all in jest, we were fine with it.”
“Oh, the ridiculously over-the-top fake broadcast you did was a joke? Well, in that case, we’re all good!” I can’t give that exchange enough currency here, as it is central to my thesis that Wyllie and Snyder are not human beings, but replicants trying to live a human’s life. Nobody who hadn’t suffered severe head trauma could listen to the “offending” content and think it was anything but a joke done as parody. In this case, revelation indicates ignorance on a level that simply isn’t human. It seems Wyllie knew he’d let the android out of the bag, as well, as he followed up with another comment.
“I have a sense of humor, like everyone else. It’s a joke, and I take it as a joke. Once they said it was all a joke, that’s all there was to it.”
Nobody’s buying it, skin-job. What, you think we really believe the team’s strident reluctance to give up the Redskins name is simply because you’re too ignorant to recognize a racist term when you see one? Please, nobody’s that ignorant. No, you just can’t give up the “skins” name because you’re androids. You may have some people fooled, replicants, but not this reporter!
[Editor’s Note: And this is just for Dan Snyder and Tony Wyllie — everyone else, please go about your day. Tim’s comments here, in which he suggests you are not human and are, in fact, replicants from Tyrell Corp., is also a joke. Just getting that out of the way ahead of time, so as to avoid any confusion.]
Filed Under: dan snyder, jokes, parody, redskins, replicants, tony wyllie
How Trademark Law Can Finally Kill Dan Snyder's Racist Dreamworld
from the trademark-slurs dept
Before we dig into this, let’s put a couple of facts into evidence. First, Dan Snyder is the owner of the NFL’s Washington Redskins football franchise. Next, as we’ve covered before, Dan Snyder is an idiot. In addition, the term “Redskin” is a taboo word, commonly considered offensive and detested by Native American groups that have visited with the team to explain to them that they’d prefer not to be disparaged in such a manner. Now, there is a contingent of strange people in this country that insist that fighting back against an NFL team using the Native American version of “darky” is the height of our overly political correct culture and is a waste of time. If you’re one of those people, I invite you to voice that opinion in the comments section, not because I think your stupid argument has any merit, but rather because I just want to watch you look silly.
That said, the controversy over the team’s name has existed since roughly the time us white folks landed on this land and began helpfully distributing small-pox-ladened blankets to shivering women-folk. So how do we finally get the name changed? As it turns out, the answer just might be trademark law. See, the United States government is a lot of things, and not all of them good, but they sure don’t like to officially sanction racial slurs. Couple that with how important trademarks are to NFL teams and we have a light at the end of this racist tunnel. Per trademark lawyer Christine Haight Farley:
Since 1905 federal trademark law has banned the registration of scandalous or immoral marks. In 1947, marks that may disparage, bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols were also banned. U.S. trademark law is not unique in prohibiting the registration of offensive trademarks. Many other countries’ trademark laws contain similar provisions.
So, the starting point is that you can’t trademark an offensive term. This, for obvious reasons, essentially amounts to the government not wanting to be in the business of hate-speech. Court cases have been brought in the past asserting the Redskins mark to be invalid on these grounds, with a tribunal in 1999 agreeing that the mark should be cancelled. Unfortunately, that ruling was overturned on federal appeal, which asserted that the lawsuit was brought by old people who should have been offended long before they formally stated so (unjustified delay in bringing the suit) while simultaneously stating that they just weren’t quite sure most Native Americans disliked being referred to primarily by their ill-described skin.
However, a younger group of Native Americans has refiled and a ruling is expected fairly soon. If Farley’s analysis is correct, there seems to be only one logical way for the court to rule.
The term used by the Washington football team has been demonstrated by overwhelming linguistic and historical evidence to constitute a disparaging epithet insulting to Native Americans. Many Native American organizations, including the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Education Association, the Native American Journalists Association, the Native American Rights Fund, the Morning Star Institute, the International Indian Treaty Council, and the National Indian Youth Council, have publicly and vociferously opposed the continued use of the term in trademarks or as the name of sports teams. The director of the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian has said he considers that name to be the most offensive name in current use. The trademark office tribunal was satisfied by survey evidence that showed that 37 percent of the Native Americans surveyed found the word the team uses as their name to be offensive.
Now, while the cancellation of the mark wouldn’t require the team to change its name, or even stop using the epithet in commerce, it might as well. Trademarks on team names, perhaps most-so in for NFL teams, is where a vast amount of team revenue is achieved. If they lose the mark, it would open the commerce door to all manner of groups to use the name in commerce. That isn’t something a team run by Dan Snyder would stand for. In other words, trademark might actually kill off the most offensive team name in sports. As far as I’m concerned, it can’t happen soon enough.
Filed Under: dan snyder, offensive, redskins, trademark
Redskins Owner Dan Synder Realizes He Was Going To Lose His Defamation Lawsuit Badly, Drops It
from the that's-what-we-call-a-punt dept
Remember Dan Snyder? The much-maligned owner of the Washington Redskins who sued a small newspaper for running a clearly satirical article about him? The same owner of the Washington Redskins who also argued that a picture of him accompanying that article that added scribbled devil horns and goatee was somehow antisemitic? The lawsuit alone massively increased attention to the article and its jokes about Snyder. Just last week, even Snyder finally admitted that it was “possibly” a tactical error to sue.
Well, Verve lets us know that Snyder has finally dropped the lawsuit, 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.
Amusingly, Snyder also declares — against pretty much all evidence — that he’s been “vindicated” in filing the lawsuit, because Washington City Paper:
“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.”
Um. That’s not vindication of the lawsuit. That’s WCP explaining what everyone else in the world already knew: the article was satire, designed to make fun of Snyder. Saying that the points weren’t all meant to be read literally as true isn’t an admission. It’s pointing out that Snyder is apparently unable to comprehend basic satire.
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 federal anti-SLAPP law.
Filed Under: anti-slapp, dan snyder, defamation, redskins, washington city paper
Companies: washington city paper, washington redskins
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: anti-slapp, dan snyder, steve cohen
How Dan Snyder's 'Libel' Suit Against Unflattering Article Demonstrates Need For Federal Anti-SLAPP Law
from the libel-me-this dept
In February, we wrote about how Washington Redskins (er, we mean Washington Professional Football Team Who Shall Not Be Named) owner Dan Snyder had such a thin skin that he had sued a local newspaper, the Washington City Paper, claiming libel over a silly satirical story that mocked Snyder.
Not only did it draw a lot more attention to the claims against Snyder, there were all sorts of problems with the lawsuit itself, including the absolutely ridiculous charge that scribbling devil features on his image was “anti-semitic.” It’s not. But, as some have pointed out, even if it was, being anti-semitic is not against the law. However, people digging into most of the other charges have found they’re pretty questionable as well. For example, the article claimed that Snyder “was caught forging names as a telemarketer.” Snyder claims this is false. However, what is true is that the company he owned, Snyder Communications paid a large fine for slamming — which is effectively forging names. Snyder claims that it was the company, not him, who did this, and thus the charge is libelous.
What makes this claim particularly ironic, is that Snyder has focused his legal efforts in this case on… the parent company of the newspaper who wrote the letter. So, in Snyder’s mind, apparently, when people at his companies do something illegal, his hands are clean. But, if someone at another company says something that kinda, sorta, might be untrue… liability goes all the way up to the top.
From a legal perspective, though, there were numerous questions as to why Snyder filed the lawsuit in New York. After all, all of the major players in the lawsuit are in and around the Washington DC/Maryland area. Paul Alan Levy suggests a reasonable answer: Washington DC and Maryland have reasonable anti-SLAPP laws that would likely get such a lawsuit tossed out quickly (and could subject Snyder to legal fees). New York, on the other hand, has a very narrow anti-SLAPP law, which does not apply to this case.
Even more amazing is that it appears that Snyder or his lawyer effectively admits upfront that this is a SLAPP attempt. In the letter sent to Washington City Paper’s ultimate parent company, Atalaya, Snyder warns that fighting back against the suit “would not be a rational strategy for an investment fund such as yours” because “the cost of litigation would presumably outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper.” That seems like a pretty clear admission that the purpose of the lawsuit is to suppress public speech.
Levy’s point is that this lawsuit is yet another reminder of why we need a federal anti-SLAPP law, which would allow defendants in cases such as this to hit back quickly, and to deter similar cases which are filed to stifle criticism and comment. It’s really unfortunate that Congress still has not prioritized a federal anti-SLAPP law, despite various proposals for one. Hopefully, Congressional support will come around soon.
Filed Under: anti-slapp, dan snyder, libel
Washington DC Football Team Who Shall Remain Nameless Won't Let Blogs Use Name Without Permission
from the good-job-washington-football-team dept
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 anti-fan and as ridiculously over-aggressive in trying to control the media as a team can be — has taken it to yet another level. Reader karm points us to the news that the Washington Post has had to change the name of its blog from Redskins Insider to Football Insider, due to threats from the Washington Football Team Who Shall Henceforth Remain Nameless.
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 no case 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.
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.
Filed Under: dan snyder, fans, redskins, trademark
Dan Snyder Helps Us Demonstrate The Streisand Effect In Numbers
from the nice-work-dan dept
Having coined the term “The Streisand Effect” a while back, I’m always interested in more examples of it in action. We recently talked about how Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder sued the Washington City Paper over a tongue-in-cheek article criticizing him, and the response may actually give us some Streisand Effect data. Paul Alan Levy sends over a neat blog post from Tech Cocktail that tries to quantify how much more attention was driven to the article Snyder was so upset about. The answer? An awful lot.
As you can see, the article got a bunch of comments early on, and then it died out, as comments tend to do. Then the lawsuit hit. And suddenly the article got more than twice as many comments as it had accumulated up until then. And, of course, the story spread via social networking services as well:
The article garnered 554 tweets and over 7,000 Facebook (FB) likes. A quick survey of City Paper articles shows that few, if any, other articles by Mr. McKenna rate more than 5 comments, tweets or FB likes.
So by suing, Snyder helped drive a ton more traffic to the article that was critical of him. And if you think that within all that traffic some folks are agreeing with Snyder’s take on things… again that doesn’t appear to be the case:
Activity on the Paper?s Facebook Group has increased and is overwhelmingly supportive, as is the Twittosphere. Sentiment towards Snyder is unanimously negative as measured by tools like Tweet Feel which at my last count showed a 100% anti-Snyder rating, well below Hosni Mubarak who came in at 67% negative.
Yeah. Perhaps next time, before suing over some minor criticism, people might take such results into account.
Filed Under: dan snyder, data, streisand effect