[sportscurmudgeon]

Two points:


1. The court will decide if there are factual errors in the City Paper article. Snyder will assert that there are; the City Paper will assert that there not. If each side continues to repeat its position, no new light is shed on the matter. My guess: There are some factual errors and there are some factual truths in the article.


2. Since Daniel Snyder is clearly a public figure - - in the legal definition of that term - - it is insufficient for him to prove that there are factual errors in the article. Because he is a public figure, he must also convince a court that the author and publisher knew they were inaccurate and published them anyway with the intent of harming Daniel Snyder specifically. Once again, the court will make that decision. My guess: I don't think it will be easy to convince the court that there was a malicious intent prior to publication


Note, both paragraphs above end with "My guess:" - - and the emphasis is on the word "guess". I suspect we will hear about this case as it moves forward another half-dozen times before a judge rules on it.

Personally, I have heard enough about it already. Time to ignore this until the judge bangs his/her gavel and reveals the final answer...