Washington Redskins Fail The Twitter Test With Football Fans And Followers

from the oops dept

There's an old saying in the legal industry that's supposedly hammered into law school students: never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. That idiom can probably also be applied to corporations and their forays into social media: never start an online campaign or contest unless you know what the reaction of your audience is going to be. And, if a Mike Masnick can earn fame on the coinage of a term like "the Streisand Effect", then perhaps I too can find myself a Wikipedia mention by coining what happened in the following story as "the Redskin Botch."

Whatever you think of the debate over the name of the Washinton NFL team, let's put that aside for the moment and focus on the complete failure of whoever is managing the Redskins' Twitter account to anticipate the reaction to their latest call to arms. Like any mildly amusing story, it all starts with Harry Reid, who whipped up fifty senators to sign a letter to the NFL stating that it was time the Washington team changed its name. In response, the team's Twitter account put out the call for fans to tweet Reid explaining why the team's name apparently means so much to them, for some reason.

Tweet @SenatorReid to show your #RedskinsPride and tell him what the team means to you. — Washington Redskins (@Redskins) May 29, 2014

The tweet, the call, and the hashtag got more attention that the team could have hoped for, and caused a larger backlash than the team could have feared. Fans of the team or not, the response was the exact opposite of the team's intention, with the overwhelming majority of respondents favoring the name change and offering their support to Reid, not the team. Some wonderfull highlights include:

#RacialSlurPride RT @Redskins: Tweet @SenatorReid to show your #RedskinsPride and tell him what the team means to you. — Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 29, 2014

Hey @Redskins and @HarryReid! To me #redskinspride is about normalizing overt racism in the 21st century. Did I do this right @Redskins ? — Bart Johnston (@MBJohnston12) May 29, 2014

#RedskinsPride because keeping the tshirt in my closet accurate is much more important than whole races of people — bd (@IHatebd) May 29, 2014

A really poor grasp of social media marketing? RT @Redskins: Tweet @SenatorReid to show #RedskinsPride & tell him what the team means to you — Hugh C. McBride (@hughcmcbride) May 29, 2014

As the post notes, even fans of the team reacted similarly, indicating that the last example I offered is perhaps the entire point. A failure to understand what reaction you're going to get when you start a social media campaign is the Redskins Botch. And the failure wasn't lost on the intended target, with Reid's office commenting:

"The Skins tried to engage folks, and it has failed miserably," Faiz Shakir, Reid's digital director, told us. In the minutes after the Skins' tweet, Shakir said "we haven't found more than one or two that are actually supportive."

A wonderful failure all around and it couldn't have happened to better people, as far as I'm concerned.

Filed Under: redskin botch, redskins, social media, twitter, 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

USPTO: Again, Redskin Can't Be Trademarked Because It's A Racist Term

from the no-kidding dept

In the ongoing maelstrom known as the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins NFL team name, we've covered before how the trademark they've obtained may soon be under siege. Trademark law has a provision that prohibits marks on disparaging and/or racist terminology, of which the term "redskin" is most assuredly included. This provision is a huge pain in the ass of Daniel Snyder, owner of the Redskins, who, on one hand, insists the team retain their racist name while on the other hand throws around accusations of antisemetism willy-nilly. Building on that worry is the recent case of the USPTO coming out and rejecting another trademark attempt on the word "Redskin" for those very reasons.

Well, unfortunately for Snyder, that case isn't a lone example. The USPTO has rejected another such trademark, this for "Washington Redskins Potatoes", in part of the same reason.

"Registration is refused because the applied-for mark includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols," the decision, handed down on March 17, says. It concludes: "Given that "REDSKIN" in the mark is a derogatory slang term that refers to, and is considered offensive by, American Indians, registration of the applied-for mark must be refused" under the Trademark Act, a 1946 law that prohibits the trademarking of offensive or derogatory terms. The examining attorney's decision cites dictionary definitions of the word "Redskins" that say it is "usually offensive" or "offensive slang," and it also notes that groups like the National Congress of American Indians and the Oneida Indian Nation regard the word as a disparaging slur.

Now, I know all you staunch libertarians out there are going to get your boxers in a twist over this, issuing all the same proclamations about how it isn't your responsibility to not offend people, how this is an infringement of speech, or how this is a sign of our increasingly politically correct society. Look, I get you. A large portion of the time on this type of question, I agree with you. But in this case, the law is pretty clear, as is the accepted definition of the term "redskin." And if the NFL team's mark was removed, it wouldn't mean Snyder had to change the name of the team, it would just mean that anyone else, were they so inclined, would be able to use the term in football commerce at that point (although, not the logo, or other trademarked identifiers for the team). The point, as it has been since day one, is that the United States government should not be in the business of sanctifying racist language via grants of trademarks.

It should be noted that the offensiveness of the term was only partly to blame for the denial of the mark. The USPTO also thought there might be some confusion between the team's existing mark and the potatoes (which might not be entirely crazy given the combination of both "washington" and "redskin" for the potato).

Meanwhile, the appeal on the NFL Redskins mark has been heard, and we're all just awaiting their ruling. If the USPTO is anything to go by, Snyder may want to look for a new name -- or at least recognize that the name won't be trademarked any more.

Filed Under: potatoes, racism, redskins, trademark, uspto

USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked

from the paging-Dan-Snyder dept

Months back I and others were questioning whether or not the NFL's Washington Redskins team could trademark their name, given that trademark law includes some fairly explicit language that bans such marks on offensive, racist, or derogatory language. While some folks raised understandable concerns about the flimsy nature of the oft-offended, it was and is my opinion that the United States government should not be in the business of sanctifying rich, white men making gobs of money off of a reference to the skin color of a group of people that same government had nearly obliterated. Crazy, I know, but 'yam what I 'yam.

And now, amazingly, we appear to have our answer. And that answer is that you of course can't trademark the term "Redskins" because it's derogatory.

Late last month, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied an application to register a trademark for "Redskins Hog Rinds," a product wholly unrelated to the Washington football team. The USPTO's reasoning for refusing the trademark is simple: It's offensive. From the USPTO decision:

"Registration is refused because the applied-for mark REDSKINS HOG RINDS consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols."

As Deadspin notes, this is unrelated to the Washington team, which already has their mark and does not have to go through this same review process, but the point appears to be clear: the USPTO says you can't trademark "Redskins" because of the nature of the word. The timing of this is likely worrisome to Dan Snyder, owner of the Redskins, given that there is a lawsuit brought by a group of Native Americans sitting before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, who is sure to point to this application denial as evidence in their claim. Losing the mark wouldn't infringe on Snyder's speech by preventing him from using the word for his team and merchandise. It would simply allow everyone who wanted to use an openly racist term on merchandise to do so, which would almost certainly lead to Snyder changing the name of the team to something less horrific.

So...er...thanks, USPTO?

Filed Under: offensive, redskins, trademark, uspto

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

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

Redskins Owner Sues Local Paper Over Satirical Listing Of Grievances... Making Sure More People Read It

from the hello-ms.-streisand dept

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 suing a bunch of fans 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 was prohibited and creating "media guidelines" that seriously stifle what reporters can talk about, if they want to continue to be given any access to the team.

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 Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder, 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.

But not Dan Snyder.

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:

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).

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."

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.

Snyder, apparently, decided not to pay much heed to this letter, as he proceeded with the lawsuit (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. 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 widely mocked for thinking otherwise.

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?

Filed Under: attention, dan snyder, defamation, redskins

How Not To Do Things: Redskins Suing Over 100 Fans

from the that'll-convince-them dept

We've been talking about ways that individuals and organizations can better connect with fans... while also highlighting examples of what not to do, so it should come as little surprise that many of you sent over the news that the Washington Redskins have sued well over 100 season ticket holders, 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 do not, and the few that do, only do so in the rarest of circumstances.

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 lowest average attendance rates in all of baseball. Compare that to the Redskins, who have a stunning record of selling out every home game since 1968. In other words, if anyone had a reason to go after those not paying, it would be the Nationals. The Redskins can easily resell the tickets.

And... actually, it is reselling those tickets for a nice profit while still 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.

If you want a lesson in how not to treat fans, check out the Redskins.

Filed Under: fans, lawsuits, redskins, season tickets