Snyder writes open letter to Washington Post regarding City Paper lawsuit

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You missed the point about context. The line read:
That’s the Dan Snyder who got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications

That is different from a more factually correct claim:
That’s the Dan Snyder whose company got caught forging names

Notice that if I say:
Obama leads a country which has dog fighting

it is different than if I say:
Obama fights dogs in his country

Yes, context is everything, and on this point the newspaper is in the wrong because of poor wording.

But you have to be able to prove that the context was meant to be malicious, and Dan isn't going to be able to do that. The article was a parody on Dan Snyder's business life and the many stupid things he's done. It wasn't meant to be serious, nor was it's objective to call him a criminal.

Not sure if you scanned it, but check out what the Supreme Court had to say about these types of parodies and articles.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia