Skip to content

Congressman: Snyder uses the courts for his personal revenge

Dan Snyder AP

Redskins owner Daniel Snyder’s decision to sue the Washington City Paper over a critical commentary has drawn the attention of a member of Congress, who thinks it’s time to enact legislation to provide greater protection of the First Amendment rights of people facing such suits.

As pointed out by Dan Steinberg of the Washington Post, U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Tennessee, wrote in Roll Call that the type of lawsuit filed by Snyder is dangerous, and that Congress should pass a law protecting both individuals and publications like the City Paper from suits like Snyder’s.

“Snyder’s lawsuit against the newspaper highlights a much more serious issue -— the need for federal legislation to protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans against strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs,” Cohen wrote. “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.”

According to Cohen, lawsuits like Snyder’s are dangerous because if a billionaire wants to, he can sue his enemies and bury them in legal fees, even if the lawsuit has no merit.

Permalink 87 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
87 Responses to “Congressman: Snyder uses the courts for his personal revenge”
  1. harmcityhomer says: Jun 4, 2011 12:52 PM

    Negotiate don’t litigate.

  2. buckybadger says: Jun 4, 2011 12:52 PM

    Snyder should be forced to repay back all the legal fees this writer and/or news paper incurred because of this lawsuite. This congressman is 100% right, there needs to be protection for this sort thing. I read the article, there was nothing there that wasn’t factual or outside the bounds of freedom of speech. Snyder you have now passed Al Davis as the worse owner.

  3. whoisthatteam says: Jun 4, 2011 12:52 PM

    It’s only ok if you’re a corporation. Monsanto for example.

  4. turgidsen says: Jun 4, 2011 12:54 PM

    Cue , the thought provoking and intelligent comment from boysroll.

    I hope everyone understood the sarcasm I intended with that statement.

  5. footballhistorian says: Jun 4, 2011 12:54 PM

    The first amendment has already been enacted to protect free speech (amongst several things). I am definitely NO fan of “big tiny”. Why doesn’t our socialist representative work on getting the legislature to act on easing the prohibitive taxes and other regulatory obstacles that are killing our economy? Or here’s another…protecting our southern border…oh wait…those things might not jive with his party’s goals…

  6. johnjosephyossarian says: Jun 4, 2011 12:56 PM

    Synder is a criminal who made his money on the back of illegal actions. Not surprising.

  7. turgidsen says: Jun 4, 2011 12:59 PM

    Oh I almost forgot this particular blogger has been all over this story since day one. Good for him . Also a little sacrasm in that comment . I wonder what his beef is with Danny boy.

  8. meekdog78 says: Jun 4, 2011 1:01 PM

    I have long thought that there should be a process for weeding out lawsuits that have no merit. We should have a system where the person bringing the lawsuit and their lawyer(s) must present to the court enough evidence to show the lawsuit has merit, and should proceed to trial. If the court finds that the lawsuit is completely without merit and is a frivolous waste of time, the court should then fine the lawyer for bringing this lawsuit to court. This way, lawyers are forced to weed through the crap and only take the cases that they think have merit rather than trying to take as many cases and billing hours as possible.

  9. chadmurdigan says: Jun 4, 2011 1:05 PM

    “and bury them in legal fees, even if the lawsuit has no merit.”

    America in 2011… sigh…

  10. My Last Victim Escaped says: Jun 4, 2011 1:07 PM

    Too bad Dannyboy cant sue to get a good team in DC. All the money in the world couldnt get him a good team.

  11. gooftroopers says: Jun 4, 2011 1:11 PM

    I agree, take your lumps you big cry baby. Don’t waste tax payer dollars for your personal vendetta’s.

  12. willycents says: Jun 4, 2011 1:13 PM

    Just what we need, more laws protecting some group or sub-group. Hell’s Bells, don’t we already have enough laws that are selectively enforced already?
    Remember the law of unintended consequences…IF a law is passed to prevent one class of people; billionaires, from sueing, it will pretty quickly apply to everyone else.

  13. aldavisisthenfl says: Jun 4, 2011 1:14 PM

    so he’s a financial bully as an arsehole………

  14. toiletking says: Jun 4, 2011 1:20 PM

    It’s time for this sociopath to be removed from the NFL. He’s ruined a great franchise, and this is simply bad for football no matter what team you support.

  15. tinbender2000 says: Jun 4, 2011 1:22 PM

    Karma alone will keep this dickweed from ever having a winning team (See Albert Haynsworth)

  16. bears0492 says: Jun 4, 2011 1:22 PM

    From PFT’s last article regarding this case:

    “Indeed, the City Paper article, titled “The Cranky Redskins Fan’s Guide to Dan Snyder,” includes a statement that Snyder “got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications.””

    That is clear libel and being a rich and (in)famous person doesn’t mean anything can be said of you. I believe in the court system, and a statement like this goes above and beyond First Amendment rights.

    Later in the article –
    “Washington City Paper‘s publisher has acknowledged that Snyder didn’t engage in forgery, writing, “we have no reason to believe he personally did any such thing.””

    And to add onto that, “Snyder writes in today’s op-ed that he isn’t looking to extract money from the City Paper, but he is looking to extract an apology.”

    Okay, so to be clear, he not seeking money but rather an apology for something the Publisher agrees was ill advised to be written.

    Not only that, but if a court thinks a case is a sham the way Cohen is insinuating, then they can award the defendant legal fee reimbursement from Snyder.

    Wow, and this guy is still being looked at as the bad guy in this, simply because he spends boatloads in free agency in spurts.

  17. sickcuz says: Jun 4, 2011 1:24 PM

    My Last Victim Escaped says:
    Jun 4, 2011 1:07 PM
    Too bad Dannyboy cant sue to get a good team in DC. All the money in the world couldnt get him a good team.

    He bought a good team, but turned them into the Cherry Blossoms. They look good for a couple of weeks then wither away.

  18. stull60060 says: Jun 4, 2011 1:26 PM

    Snyder’s lawsuit has more merit than the lady who sued McDonald’s because she was stupid enough to put the coffee between her legs while driving off from the drive thru window. I believe some judge actually allowed the case and she received $2 million dollars. Judges were lawyers before they were judges. Most of them are corrupt. There more than willing to allow a case for their lawyer comrades to cash in especially against a cash cow like the McDonald’s corporation. If you don’t want frivolous law suits make sure you don’t elect judges who allow them. Any person who knows right from wrong and has common sense would tell the lawyer who files a suit such as the one against McDonalds the following: “Councilor, if you ever bring me another frivolous suit I will see to it that you are disbarred”. End of story. Freedom of speech does not allow you to slander someone or make false accusations that tarnish someone’s reputation. The media are not above the law. However, I’m surprised there aren’t more lawsuits filed against main stream media considering the amount of lying, speculation and half truths that they publish or broadcast on a daily basis. They frequently slander people they don’t like. They rarely, if at all investigate or research the facts before spewing their vitriol. Some is negligence. Most is purposeful.

  19. simplesimon1 says: Jun 4, 2011 1:29 PM

    willycents says:

    “Just what we need, more laws protecting some group or sub-group.”

    Did you even read the article? The congressman wants a law passed so people that have limitless resources can’t simply sue people they don’t like. It’s protecting people from unfair litigation, not some “sub-group” of the population. Dan Snyder should not be able to sue a newspaper for writing unflattering things about him. It’s a huge waste of money and an unflattering system that allows people to sue over every little stupid thing and it would be about time to pass such a law.

    If somebody calls you a name be a big boy and deal with it with words or simply walk away. Can’t we at least hold ourselves, as adults, to the same standards we expect our children to live up to?

  20. rangenius says: Jun 4, 2011 1:30 PM

    So this free speech is good, but Mendenhall’s tweets are bad. You people make zero sense.

  21. jw731 says: Jun 4, 2011 1:34 PM

    And a small man gets smaller…….

    Leave it to Snyder to take the Napoleon Complex to an entire new level…..Watch as a small man gets smaller…..Is he going to sue me for my comment?

  22. humb0lt says: Jun 4, 2011 1:41 PM

    Snyder = slimeball. But I’m feeling that way about the whole lot of NFL owners these days.

  23. jackbassett says: Jun 4, 2011 1:43 PM

    I firmly believe Synder is a fool for filing the suit. I feel embarrassed for his family and friends. That said, isn’t Cohen verging on “abusing” his power as well? Get back to helping balance the budget and dealing with other crises facing the Nation. Cohen, you are a fool for worrying about the Snyder issue when much bigger problems are before you.

  24. ianwhetstone says: Jun 4, 2011 1:43 PM

    Seriously, Snyder… pull up your big boy pants and go back to just sucking at owning a football team, instead of also trying to ruin the lives and businesses of ordinary people in the process.

  25. palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says: Jun 4, 2011 1:49 PM

    Dan Snyder would sue God for more height if the Courts would let him.

    I meant to preface my prior statement with, “Allegedly”.

    Please don’t sue me Mr. Snyder!

  26. kindbass says: Jun 4, 2011 1:50 PM

    willycents says:
    Jun 4, 2011 1:13 PM
    Just what we need, more laws protecting some group or sub-group. Hell’s Bells, don’t we already have enough laws that are selectively enforced already?
    Remember the law of unintended consequences…IF a law is passed to prevent one class of people; billionaires, from sueing, it will pretty quickly apply to everyone else.
    ——————————————————–
    Way to completely miss the point. Good job.

  27. Deb says: Jun 4, 2011 1:50 PM

    @willycents …

    Subgroup? Protecting free speech and freedom of the press protects “we the people.” We the people aren’t a subgroup.

  28. ebenezergrymm says: Jun 4, 2011 1:52 PM

    As an Eagles fan and speaking for all Eagles fans around the world, I hope Dan Snyder stays in charge of the Redskins for a very long time.

  29. hardcorevikesfan says: Jun 4, 2011 1:55 PM

    @willycents

    So if it applies to everyone that is a bad thing? This country is so damn sue happy the way it is. I for one enjoy my right to say what I want…

  30. abninf says: Jun 4, 2011 1:57 PM

    “and bury them in legal fees, even if the lawsuit has no merit.”

    —————————————————

    The federal government does the same thing.

  31. hail2tharedskins says: Jun 4, 2011 2:01 PM

    I agree with the Congressman to a certain extent. But this is not simply a case about free speech. Dan Snyder has deservedly been criticized in local papers too many times to count and he has not tried to sue. However, in this particular case it appears that the author/paper knowingly published false information about Snyder and when Snyder asked for a printed retraction and apology – while the paper acknowledged the facts were wrong they refused to print the retraction. I have to side with Snyder on this one, I think it is more important that our press print accurate information – it does the public no good to have free speech and a free press if the press knowingly will print false information to suit their own agenda. We need a well-informed public, not a misinformed public!

  32. hedleykow says: Jun 4, 2011 2:06 PM

    I’m right and you’re wrong, because I have more money than you.

    Throw in some bigotry and a couple lumps of Jesus, and there you have the makings of the Tea Party.

    America, the beautiful.

  33. kegowhisky says: Jun 4, 2011 2:07 PM

    I am so tired of all this crap. Snyder does stupid stuff that pisses off the fans and community at large, so a columnist attacks Snyder in print, which pisses Snyder off to point of taking it to court. Can’t we just stop the BS and try to get a season going? Oh yeah, I forgot I’m just a fan who can’t do a damn thing about the season.

  34. axespray says: Jun 4, 2011 2:09 PM

    I also hate it when that Jack Thompson guy tries to sue video game developers.

    “They’re murder simulators! (unlike the bible/quran?)”

  35. eaglesfootballfan says: Jun 4, 2011 2:12 PM

    Only Daniel Snyder and he wonders why the Redskins are so Baaaaaaaaaaaaad.

  36. clownsfan says: Jun 4, 2011 2:13 PM

    Dan Snyder is a whiny p*ssy

  37. chatham10 says: Jun 4, 2011 2:17 PM

    This is such an important sports post, who cares and for sure when Congress is involved with big bucks.

  38. stixzidinia says: Jun 4, 2011 2:17 PM

    That’s okay. A bullet passes through a billionaire’s skull the same as it does anybody else’s.

  39. mikeyhigs says: Jun 4, 2011 2:22 PM

    They should also pass a law that says if you sue somebody and lose, you should have to pay all legal and court fees for both parties plus award the winner with the amount you tried to sue for. That would reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits

  40. commandercornpone says: Jun 4, 2011 2:24 PM

    this doesnt require yet another law.

  41. som1com says: Jun 4, 2011 2:35 PM

    Maybe the judge will feel the same way and SLAPP Danny boy with fines and make him pay the legal fees of the City Paper for his frivolous lawsuit.

  42. buckybadger says: Jun 4, 2011 2:42 PM

    willycents, but right now if money isn’t an issue like it is for Snyder than he can destroy anyone who disagrees with him. Right now you are protecting the filthy rich and they get enough of that in this country.

  43. paperlions says: Jun 4, 2011 2:54 PM

    Well, yeah, but the being a financial bully is the entire basis of any lockout. In all such situations, ownership is relying on the fact that financial hardship will visit the workers quickly, creating leverage, quick resolution, a better deal for them, and a crappy one for the people that work for a living. Financial bullying has always been the American business model, not capitalism (financial bullying has always been used to reduce marketplace competition), why should this be any different when it comes to slander/libel suits?

  44. swissard says: Jun 4, 2011 2:58 PM

    This is just an individual example of the bigger picture with the NFL lockout. I don’t like how I/we messed up in the past now everyone else will pay even though no team is in financial hurt (- I haven’t heard of any owner needing to sell.)
    Take legal action and wait them out. The mega wealthy “haves” have taken to using the legal system to drain the lesser “haves” and the “have nots”.
    Sad

  45. smootysmoot says: Jun 4, 2011 3:19 PM

    @My Last Victim Escaped

    Wow, real original Slingblade. Seriously, have something to say that has not been said a Million times. U R A DOUCHE!

  46. scott8nj says: Jun 4, 2011 3:20 PM

    I didn’t see the article but if he’s going to sue everyone that has written that his team stinks and he’s the reason, he’ll soon have a suit against everyone that writes for a living.

  47. dgtalmn says: Jun 4, 2011 3:33 PM

    Be careful of your comments, he might just sue you too!

  48. backindasaddle says: Jun 4, 2011 3:34 PM

    I agree with ‘willycents’.

    We don’t need more and more laws. We are already way too litigious. We have a system in which our legislative branch of Congress is filled to the brim with lawyers and they do nothing but continuously write more and more laws. It’s all they do. It’s their only function. Look, I’m no big fan of Danny Boy Snyder, but writing new laws in Congress is not the solution, it’s just a further perversion of the legal system that is already too convoluted.

    On the face of it, it sounds like Snyder is suing the paper for defamation of character (not sure because it doesn’t say in the blurb above). But if he is suing for defamation of character, shouldn’t he have that right just like anybody else? And would this new law prevent anybody from suing for defamation of character? Would that then mean a news paper could publicly soil all over you, paint you as a vile character, completely ruin your reputation without factual proof…. and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it???

    I have very little trust of ‘newspapers-with-agendas’ and NO trust of a Congress full of corrupt lawyers writing ‘laws-with-agendas’.

  49. johnnyoclock says: Jun 4, 2011 3:43 PM

    Ummm yeah I really don’t think people who openly support the side that is currenly engaging in a tactic of abusing of the court system should be complaining about, you know, abusing the court system. Glass houses, PFT.

  50. denverhighrize says: Jun 4, 2011 3:47 PM

    Is there anything that Dan Snyder does that isn’t self-serving?

  51. insider7 says: Jun 4, 2011 3:49 PM

    Anti-slap laws, prohibiting lawsuits like this, are standard and widely accepted. These laws don’t curtail any legitimate rights. They just outlaw abuse of our courts (and, therefore, our tax money).

    If the laws need strengthening in order to better protect the Constitutional free speech rights of our citizens, then so be it.

  52. imjinbrdgr says: Jun 4, 2011 3:54 PM

    chadmurdigan says: Jun 4, 2011 1:05 PM

    “and bury them in legal fees, even if the lawsuit has no merit.”

    America in 2011… sigh…

    2011? That’s been the way of the rich holding sway over the poor in America for at least 100 years.

  53. tmaczoozoo says: Jun 4, 2011 4:32 PM

    Hahahahahaha… you go boy!

  54. dryzzt23 says: Jun 4, 2011 4:33 PM

    ACLU

    This is exactly what the ACLU does to small towns, cities, churches, and counties. They file a lawsuit and force people, towns, cities, churches, and counties to defend themselves, sometimes it costs millions of dollars, just over “free speech” or politicla correctness b/c one person was “offended”

    So it’s ok if a liberal organization like MoveOn.org or the ACLU does it the media is silent, but if a conservative business owner does it then the media MUST object to it.

    It’s time that the media is no longer protected from saying whatever they want. Let them be held accountable for what they say….in a criminal court of law.

  55. souldogdave says: Jun 4, 2011 4:42 PM

    He is a bully.”Little Ceasar” didn’t sue Bang Cartoon, and that send up was hilarious.Arrest the lawyers that file that kind of “lawsuit”. Watch the Bangcartoon.com on Snyder and the Redskins, priceless.

  56. skinfangray says: Jun 4, 2011 4:57 PM

    Perhaps someone should explain to this Congressman that there are far bigger issues than trying to protect a ridiculous member of the media. I think that there should be more laws that hold the media to a standard that is at least somewhat close to their so-called code of conduct. The writer for the City Paper wrote what amounted to a personal attack on Snyder. And, no, alot of it was not true. The writer even admitted that he “stretched the truth” in some parts of the story, but it was based on what he had heard through “sources”. I hope Snyder buries this paper under so much legal debt that they wind up going out of business. Maybe the next time some hack decides to write a story that attacks someone, their editor will fact check it a little closer.

  57. skinfangray says: Jun 4, 2011 5:03 PM

    johnjosephyossarian says: Jun 4, 2011 12:56 PM

    Synder is a criminal who made his money on the back of illegal actions. Not surprising.
    —————————————————–

    Explain? I gotta hear this. I am going to wager that you make some ridiculous story up with absolutely no facts behind it. Which is pretty much what happened with this hack reporter, who then decided to hide behind freedom of the press. So, let’s hear your explanation.

  58. derekjetersmansion says: Jun 4, 2011 5:10 PM

    Has anyone here even read McKenna’s article?

  59. irishjackmp says: Jun 4, 2011 5:53 PM

    I don’t pretend to know if the newspapers words rise to the level of defamation under the law.

    I am certain, however, that I feel it is a determination left to a judge and the court system rather than to some congressman looking for some media exposure. We have a seperation of powers between the legislative branch the the judicial branch for a reason. I no more want congress getting involved with individual civil suits than I want activist judges trying to legislate from the bench. How about just letting each branch of government do it’s job, ok congressman?

    Given that Snyder is not a particularly well liked guy, it’s safe to say the congressman knew his comments would play well with a majority of the football fans out there (a politician taking a position he thinks will play well with the majority to curry favor? Never!). I feel alot better when the legal/civil determination of defamation is made by what the law says rather than base it on the likeability factor of the individual (Snyder) which is what the congressman seems to want to do.

  60. henrypuppyhead says: Jun 4, 2011 7:04 PM

    dryzzt23 says: Jun 4, 2011 4:33 PM

    It’s time that the media is no longer protected from saying whatever they want. Let them be held accountable for what they say….in a criminal court of law.

    —————

    A big bucket of dumb in this comment and overall thread.

    Yeah, let’s get rid of one of the most basic tenants of the Constitution. Good boy! Do your master’s bidding.

    Here’s a treat.

  61. henrypuppyhead says: Jun 4, 2011 7:08 PM

    rangenius says: Jun 4, 2011 1:30 PM

    So this free speech is good, but Mendenhall’s tweets are bad. You people make zero sense.

    ——–

    Anyone suing Mendenhall? Are you saying people aren’t allowed to voice criticism of a stupid remark? Isn’t that what free speech is about?

    Try to keep up.

  62. thegonz13 says: Jun 4, 2011 7:16 PM

    Congressman, call your lawyer… I smell a lawsuit coming!

  63. skinsdiehard says: Jun 4, 2011 7:59 PM

    The City Paper published bull$$t and are now paying the price. They took a risk and now will reap the repurcussions. It’s good that Snyder is standing up to the media who now think they can say or print anything. Arrogant bastards!!

  64. skinsdiehard says: Jun 4, 2011 8:05 PM

    Amazing! It’s frivolous because Snyder will win the suit? Of course the media, like PFT, will side with the City Paper. I hope Snyder makes them go bankrupt and sends a message. I have-no sympathy for this a-hole City Paper writer. He has been an ass for a long time if any of you ever read his articles.

  65. lynnko says: Jun 4, 2011 8:14 PM

    If news organizations went back to reporting hard news without inserting their opinion, than the opinion / editiorial pieces would be recognized for what they are. Let’s face it, today you can’t tell the difference.

  66. skinsrollyou says: Jun 4, 2011 8:43 PM

    Snyder should be forced to repay back all the legal fees this writer and/or news paper incurred because of this lawsuite. This congressman is 100% right, there needs to be protection for this sort thing. I read the article, there was nothing there that wasn’t factual or outside the bounds of freedom of speech. Snyder you have now passed Al Davis as the worse owner.

    __________________________________

    I would thumbs up your post here, but what snyder is doing does not make him the worst owner. it has nothing to do with football. just a little douchy man throwing a fit with his billions

  67. lostsok says: Jun 4, 2011 8:58 PM

    I’d bet money Snyder is a big believer in “tort reform,” but only when it comes to poor people suing rich people.

  68. skinfangray says: Jun 4, 2011 9:09 PM

    henrypuppyhead says: Jun 4, 2011 7:04 PM

    dryzzt23 says: Jun 4, 2011 4:33 PM

    It’s time that the media is no longer protected from saying whatever they want. Let them be held accountable for what they say….in a criminal court of law.

    —————

    A big bucket of dumb in this comment and overall thread.

    Yeah, let’s get rid of one of the most basic tenants of the Constitution. Good boy! Do your master’s bidding.

    Here’s a treat.
    —————————————————
    Pot, meet kettle.

    Are you saying that this reporter should be able to hide behind the constitution? Even though it has been admitted to that he made up portions of his story? And the parts that he made up were slanderous, and actually go as far as accusing Snyder of a committing a crime, falsely?

    Try thinking before typing. And know what you’re talking about.

  69. hedleykow says: Jun 4, 2011 9:40 PM

    @skinfangray

    If you applied yourself, you could make up your own reality, and wouldn’t need to lean so heavily on the make believe world of FOX News.

  70. hendawg21 says: Jun 4, 2011 9:40 PM

    Well I think this congressman and his colleages should worry more about what THEY themselves aren’t doing on Capitol hill like a budget for 2012…

  71. vadimster says: Jun 4, 2011 9:44 PM

    not all speech should be protected. people will start abusing the right of free speech. if people lie about someone, they should not be protected by free speech.

  72. fatfreddystubbs says: Jun 4, 2011 10:19 PM

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Are you saying that this reporter should be able to hide behind the constitution? Even though it has been admitted to that he made up portions of his story? And the parts that he made up were slanderous, and actually go as far as accusing Snyder of a committing a crime, falsely?

    Try thinking before typing. And know what you’re talking about.

    ————————————————

    Well said, but it will be lost on the mindless drones commenting on this post. Yeah, Snyder might be a horrible owner, but it doesn’t mean he’s not right in this case.

    Besides, if Washington city Paper is anything like Philadelphia City Paper, it won’t be a blow to “journalism” if it goes out of business, it will be a blow (no pun intended) to ten pages of mindless liberal babble, and 40 pages of ads for the best place to find a “happy-ending”.

  73. fatelvis77 says: Jun 4, 2011 10:25 PM

    @Stull60060

    You’ve got your facts way wrong about the McDonalds lawsuit. McD’s coffee came out of the urn at 180-190 degrees, too hot to even drink. Why would they do that? Because cooking cheap, crappy coffee at extremely high temperatures makes it taste much better. At the time the woman was hurt McD had already received over 700 complaints of people being burned by their too hot coffee. Yet they made a calculated corporate decision not to change their practice because it would force them to buy more expensive coffee. The woman, who certainly was partly at fault, got third degree burns of her labia. Think about how unpleasant (pain and suffering) that must have been. A jury in a CONSERVATIVE venue in CA awarded her $3,000,000. That jury must have been mighty p’o’d at McD. However juries don’t get the last word, people just think they do. The woman’s damages were reduced to $700,000 by the court.
    P.S. McD changed its practice and their coffee is now served at a lower temperature.

    OBTW, just to get back to the topic. IMHO, Danny Boy is just trying to bully a little nothing newspaper.

  74. henrypuppyhead says: Jun 4, 2011 10:55 PM

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Are you saying that this reporter should be able to hide behind the constitution? Even though it has been admitted to that he made up portions of his story? And the parts that he made up were slanderous, and actually go as far as accusing Snyder of a committing a crime, falsely?

    Try thinking before typing. And know what you’re talking about.

    ———————–

    Are you a complete idiot? If the writer of the article did commit slander, then CIVIL court will mete out justice.

    You actually believe free speech is “hiding behind the Constitution”. Do you even understand the Constitution? Criminal court for speech? So you’ll be ready to through the yaps in Faux News right into the pokey?

    Read a book, try to use the concept of critical thinking. Hell, just try to think beyond your dick and wallet.

  75. nahcouldntbethat says: Jun 5, 2011 1:05 AM

    The question at hand is whether speech is only free in America if you have the money to pay for it.

    Kind of simple, no?

  76. randomjim says: Jun 5, 2011 1:48 AM

    stull60060 says:
    Jun 4, 2011 1:26 PM
    Snyder’s lawsuit has more merit than the lady who sued McDonald’s because she was stupid enough to put the coffee between her legs while driving off from the drive thru window. I believe some judge actually allowed the case and she received $2 million dollars. Judges were lawyers before they were judges. Most of them are corrupt. There more than willing to allow a case for their lawyer comrades to cash in especially against a cash cow like the McDonald’s corporation. If you don’t want frivolous law suits make sure you don’t elect judges who allow them. Any person who knows right from wrong and has common sense would tell the lawyer who files a suit such as the one against McDonalds the following: “Councilor, if you ever bring me another frivolous suit I will see to it that you are disbarred”. End of story.
    ===================================

    Lost in the outrageous some of money awarded (& later dropped down I believe) was that this McDonalds had been previously warned about the temperature of the coffee they were serving. So had she spilt it in a more reasonable manner, she still would have been badly burnt.

  77. pftequalsgreatjournalism says: Jun 5, 2011 3:06 AM

    If you need to be told that coffee is hot then perhaps we also need to tell you that the sky is blue and that water is wet…There is no variability to the stupidity of some people – they just are…

    Go read the article and then come back to us with your lawyer in tow to explain the merits of Little Danny’s Libel Case…

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder/

    @ skinsdiehard says:

    “He has been an ass for a long time if any of you ever read his articles.”

    When will you file your Amicus brief to provide this relevant information?

    @ turgidsen says:

    “Cue , the thought provoking and intelligent comment from boysroll.”

    Not sure if you are turgid for Little Danny or someone else but “The lady [you] doth protest too much, methinks.”

  78. theblowtorchreview says: Jun 5, 2011 9:11 AM

    I would say something here but I don’t want to get sued by The Danny.

  79. nahcouldntbethat says: Jun 5, 2011 12:20 PM

    Free speech is designed to let anybody speak their mind without fear of prosecution and punishment. That’s all it is.

    The actions of people like Daniel Snyder impinge heavily on that protection because they add in a direct cost to speech, which is the amount of money that you MUST spend to defend your speech.

    It’s fine if somebody chooses to speak against your speech and let the chips fall where they may. If you have economic interests that would be threatened by somebody else’s retaliatory speech then you’re probably better off not making the comments that would provoke that retaliation.

    Allowing somebody of means to effectively fine anybody who speaks against them by filing trivial lawsuits that must be responded too is another thing entirely.

    That’s where the notion of free speech dies.

  80. skf727 says: Jun 5, 2011 1:25 PM

    Your interpretation of what the First Amendment guarantees is 100% incorrect.

    The First Amendment guarantees that the GOVERNMENT will not limit a citizen’s freedom of speech. As Snyder is not the government, this is not a freedom of speech issue or even a freedom of press issue. Expecting Steve Cohen to know the difference is expecting a lot from Steve Cohen which is never a good thing.

    The author of the piece was lazy by claiming that Snyder personally knew that Snyder Communications was “slamming” GTE customers back in the 90s. Forging signatures that allowed GTE to switch the customers to make GTE the local, local toll and long distance provider without the customer’s explicit consent. Basically, it boils down to whether you believe that the CEO is responsible for everything one of his/her employees do.

    Considering how widespread the practice appears to have been at Snyder Communications from 1997-1999, it is unlikely that Snyder did not know what was going on but he obviously had plausible deniability. For the author to make this statement was lazy and unnecessary as Snyder has already been convicted in the court of public opinion and GTE (later Verizon) paid $3.1mm in fines regarding the charges and blamed Snyder Communcations for it though as is typical in these settlements- admitted to no wrongdoing.

    By the time the fine was paid, Snyder had already sold his company for a cool $2B and parlayed that money into buying the Redskins and aren’t Redskins fans pumped about that!

    More info than you ever wanted to know about this episode can be found at the link below

    http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?343947-The-Phone-Slamming-King-How-Snyder-Communications-made-Dan-Snyder-rich-1997-1999-…-rich-enough-to-buy-the-Washington-Redskins

  81. skinfangray says: Jun 5, 2011 1:36 PM

    hedleykow says: Jun 4, 2011 9:40 PM

    @skinfangray

    If you applied yourself, you could make up your own reality, and wouldn’t need to lean so heavily on the make believe world of FOX News.
    —————————————————–
    You know, if you don’t have anything to add to the discussion you don’t have to reply.

    However, this is what should be expected of anyone supporting the no talent hack from the City Paper. I think it is hilarious that this discussion is about how a rich person should not be allowed to bury a person of lesser wealth under a mountain of debt through lawsuits. However, you have people like you who think that it should be OK to let members of the media single out someone because they don’t like them, and slander them in the press and hide behind the constitution.

    You can always tell when a liberal finally realizes that they lost an argument, they start throwing around Fox News references. Nice try, now either add something to the discussion or quit posting.

  82. buckybadger says: Jun 5, 2011 6:54 PM

    skinfangray, what was slandered? Did you read the article. He was very specific and everything can be verified. If it wasn’t he would actually win the lawsuit instead of just trying to financially a guy who was just doing his job.

  83. hedleykow says: Jun 5, 2011 7:14 PM

    @skinfangray

    You got me. I lost that argument. I hope your Skins do well this year. Take care!

  84. hedleykow says: Jun 5, 2011 9:37 PM

    @ buckybadger

    The constitution allows skinfangray to think whatever he wants to think, and to express his opinion, no matter how weird. The thought police have no jurisdiction here. Yet.

  85. knightringonow says: Jun 7, 2011 7:45 PM

    stull60060 says:

    Snyder’s lawsuit has more merit than the lady who sued McDonald’s because she was stupid enough to put the coffee between her legs while driving off from the drive thru window. I believe some judge actually allowed the case and she received $2 million dollars. Judges were lawyers before they were judges. Most of them are corrupt. There more than willing to allow a case for their lawyer comrades to cash in especially against a cash cow like the McDonald’s corporation. If you don’t want frivolous lawsuits make sure you don’t elect judges who allow them. Any person who knows right from wrong and has common sense would tell the lawyer who files a suit such as the one against McDonalds the following: “Councilor, if you ever bring me another frivolous suit I will see to it that you are disbarred”.
    By the way, it’s “Counselor”, not “Councilor”.

    You know nothing of this case. The heating coil on this coffee pot was broken. Normally, restaurant coffee is held at 155-160 degrees F; this broken unit was holding the coffee near 200 degrees F, almost boiling. This was a case of malfeasance, and is mistakenly the posterchild for frivolous lawsuits.

  86. 1bigtex says: Jun 8, 2011 8:41 AM

    @stull6oo6o

    Please do a little research before you speak about something you obviously know little about. The lady who sued McDonalds was a passenger in her grandson’s car. The car was parked while she was adding cream and sugar to a small cup of coffee. She did spill the contents of one small cup of coffee on her lap. She suffered third degree burns and needed skin grafts. She spent over a week in the hospital and lost 20% of her body weight. When she initially contacted McDonalds, she had over $10,000 in actual medical costs, estimated additional medical costs of around $4,000, and over $5,000 in lost wages. She asked McDonalds for $20,000. They countered with an offer of $700. The case first went to a mediation. A six figure settlement was recommended. McDonalds refused. The witnesses for McDonalds lied during trial by saying that they had no way of knowing this was a dangerous situation. McDonalds had required ALL of their franchises to serve coffee at 185 degrees plus/minus 5 degrees. They had over 700 complaints with many involving similar injuries. The jury award amounted to ONE DAY’S sales of coffee for the respondent. The biggest issue with the lawsuit wasn’t greed on the part of the plantiff. It was stupidity on the part of the respondent.

  87. baseballstars says: Jun 8, 2011 3:35 PM

    Although I agree with the Congressman, keep in mind that this is a guy who used his muscle to put tremendous pressure on the executives of TruTV to get an episode of Jesse Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” pulled, simply because it made him look like a bumbling fool. So, yes, Cohen is a complete hypocrite here.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!