• This Site
  • Law.com Network
  • Legal Web

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Not Exactly a Banner Season for the Washington Redskins

David Hechler

Corporate Counsel

November 02, 2009

  • deliciousdel.icio.us
  • digg Digg
  • redditReddit
  • facebookFacebook
  • googleGoogle Bookmarks
  • newsvineNewsvine
  • linkedinLinkedIn
  • mixxMixx
  • stumbleuponStumbleupon
  • Print
  • Share
  • Email
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Post a Comment
Redskins General Counsel David Donovan.

Redskins General Counsel David Donovan.

The National Football League's regular season is near the halfway mark, and the winners have begun to separate themselves from the losers. But only one team has had to trot out its general counsel to talk to the media, and the questions he's been fielding aren't about the players on the field—they're about fans' signs and the First Amendment.

The team is the Washington Redskins, and the GC is David Donovan, who also happens to be the team's chief operating officer. The 'Skins are in the midst of another awful season (they're 2-5), and long-suffering fans have not been shy about expressing their disgust. Many have brought signs and banners to FedEx Field, and the targets of their wrath have often been billionaire owner Dan Snyder (who is also chairman of amusement park operator Six Flags Inc.) and the VP in charge of football operations, Vinny Cerrato.

Recently, however, stadium security guards have seized all signs and banners, and have asked some fans to remove T-shirts that criticized team officials. These responses seem to have redoubled fan anger, and have blown into a storm of vitriol in the always windy sports blogosphere.

In an interview with Corporate Counsel on Oct. 29—his most extensive comments on the matter to date—Donovan defended the team's banner policy, apologized for the T-shirt incident, and explained why none of it did—or could—involve the First Amendment.

Donovan acknowledged what Washington Post blogger Dan Steinberg pointed out last week: before this season fans were permitted to display signs in the stadium. Steinberg posted the language he said was on the team's Web site as recently as Oct. 4: "Banners are permitted at FedEx Field; however, Guests may not display banners that advertise or mention products or services. Banners may not cover existing FedEx Field equipment or signage. Signs may not be made with metal or wood. Management reserves the right to remove any sign, including those deemed to be obscene, inappropriate or which obstructs the view of other Guests. For the safety of all Guests, banner poles are not permitted."

Donovan isn't sure exactly when that changed. He doesn't think it was in response to the "Fire Snyder" signs. "We get complaints when people can't see the field," he said. "It appears that at least some security people have been prohibiting signs regardless of what the policy was."

Some baseball stadiums also prohibit signs, he continued. Dodger Stadium, for instance. And plenty of football stadiums impose limits beyond outlawing obscenities. Some say the signs must be related to the sport, or in good taste—"whatever that means," Donovan says.

Pop-Up Pic: Billboard Outside Dodger Stadium Tells Fans All Signs Are Banned

Also See: Redskins Ban Signs at FedEx Field (from The Washington Post)

In September, the GC fielded a complaint from a fan whose sign was confiscated. Donovan asked the director of stadium operations about the policy and was told: "We don't allow signs at all." Donovan can't account for the discrepancy, but the stadium director only joined the club in July, and he previously worked at Dodger Stadium. Donovan remains vague about when the ban was formalized, but once officials decided to expand prohibited subjects, a content-neutral policy was the way to go. Otherwise you have to ask people to make judgments, which is "not a good idea," he said.

Until last week, there didn't seem to be a controversy brewing. But the home game against Philadelphia on Monday night, Oct. 26 (another loss), seems to have been a tipping point. Security guards confiscated many signs that Steinberg photographed and posted on his blog. They threw away one from a woman that said: "HI TO MY HUSBAND IN AFGHANISTAN LOVE YOU."

In an even more potentially inflammatory development, police officers asked at least a few fans to remove or turn inside-out T-shirts they deemed offensive. One man's had "Dumb and Dumber" over photographs of Snyder and Cerrato. When confronted, the man grew angry and left the stadium. He then called a radio station and complained.

Donovan said the police officer was wrong. "A T-shirt doesn't block anybody's view," he said. "People can express anything they want on their T-shirts, as long as it's not profane." The team located the unhappy fan and apologized. Officials also met with stadium personnel and explained the T-shirt policy. Donovan vowed it won't happen again.

One more issue erupted Monday night. Television crews complained that their access to fans in the parking lot was restricted. Donovan took umbrage at this characterization. He said TV vans were told not to block parking lot traffic, and crews were instructed to interview fans on the sidewalks leading to the stadium. But that's been a policy for some time, he said, and the purpose isn't to censor the press (as some bloggers implied). "The notion that this is preventing anyone from having contact with as many thousands of fans as they want is just silly," he said.

"We're not trying to limit what anyone wants to say or chant or wear." Fans are also welcome to display banners and distribute any T-shirts they wish in the parking lot, the GC added. "We just block all signs" from the stadium. On Friday the NFL issued a statement that called it "a team and stadium matter."

Also See: Redskins Rule: Fans Can't Bring Signs to Games

Also See: Washington Nationals Park Guide

Also See: Dallas Cowboys Stadium Guests Info

Asked if there's a free speech issue, Donovan said there isn't. The team is privately owned. The stadium is private property, and no public funds were required in the construction. "I don't believe there are any First Amendment issues here." Robert Clothier, a partner in the Philadelphia office of Fox Rothschild and a First Amendment expert, agrees. "I don't see a First Amendment issue either," said Clothier, who does not represent the Redskins.

Donovan, who is 51, recognizes that the real issue for many fans is simply the team's performance on the field. "We understand that people are angry," he said. "We get it. We're not trying to shut anyone up. We feel extremely responsible for the way things have gone this season." He didn't say that all the bile could be washed away by a simple nine-game winning streak, but that seemed to be the implicit prayer when he said: "Everybody is doing everything they can."

Also See: Broncos Stadium Information Overview

Also See: Banners and Signs Policy at Yankee Stadium

Also See: Game-Day Policies at Seattle Seahawks Stadium



Subscribe to Corporate Counsel

  • Print
  • Share
  • Email
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Post a Comment

Advertisement

Most Popular Headlines

  1. Total Disclosure: Fired Ex-Bank of America GC Tells His Story
  2. Social Networking and the New Workplace
  3. Animated Top Lawyer Andrew Chang Finally Lands His Dream Job
  4. Two Roads Diverge in E-Discovery Costs
  5. Yearly Fee System Helped Tyco's Legal Department Put It All Together

Advertisement

Advertisement

About ALM  |  About Law.com  |  Customer Support  |  Reprints  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms & Conditions
Close [ X ]