Signs of the Fans

The fight between Redskins fans and Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is escalating, and it's crossed over from the blogosphere to the mainstream media.

Immediately after I started writing this evening, my Tivo unpaused causing me to catch the last few minutes of 11 o'clock news on WUSA Channel 9. They reported on signs confiscated from Redskins fans and announced a new feature to display "all the signs and messages the team won't let you bring into the stadium." The station also favorably mentioned the owner of the Cleveland Browns (1-6), who has expressed support for a fan protest against the team, saying "We deserve the protest." Such realism and humility (or at least the PR smarts to fake them) is refreshing.

Michael Wilbon of The Washington Post has weighed in condemning the censorship and criticising the ownership's foolishness in attempting to censor the fans. (Unlike many who posted comments on his blog, he didn't confuse the issue by trying to claim that the censorship was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Fed Ex field is private property, so Snyder can enforce pretty whatever speech code he wants. Yet while the censorship is perfectly legal, it certainly isn't smart.)

More banned signs. My favorite so far is "Dan, Why Do We Have to Sneak This Sign In?"

Ultimately, the Redskins ownership appears to be in a fight they can't win. They simply can't outsmart thousands of angry fans. For example, some fans have proposed a scheme to paint a larger sign "Fire Snyder" using simply the color of fans' clothing.

The only questions are when will Snyder realize he can't win and whether he can negotiate a tolerable surrender.