The victim of this racist smear is named Holden Armenta, a 9-year-old Kansas City Chiefs fan whom Deadspin tried to cancel last November. It was a wholly unwarranted column, but it was published, nonetheless. Armenta wore face paint of the team’s colors, which set off the publication into manufacturing a cacophony of nonsense about how the kid was engaging in blackface and being anti-Mexican because the other side of this face was red.
The good news is that the reaction was sane from the audience, who were aghast, appalled, and overall confused as to why the fake sports site would go after a kid. After months of deliberation about whether to sue, the Armenta family has finally decided on what they want to do concerning legal action: they’re taking Deadspin to court. Armenta’s family is also Native American. Law professor Jonathan Turley broke down the arguments and where the publication’s legal defense might rest (via Jonathan Turley):
The parents of Holden Armenta have retained counsel and sent a retraction letter to Deadspin in moves that usually precede the filing of defamation actions. Armenta was the target of a vicious and false attack by Deadspin’s Carron J. Phillips. The writer has long been controversial, but Deadspin retained him. It could now come at a high cost, but the defamation action will face challenges.
Phillips posted a side image of Holden at a game of the Kansas City Chiefs against the Las Vegas Raiders, showing his face painted black. The 9-year-old was wearing a headdress while doing the signature “Tomahawk Chop.”
Phillips went into full attack mode.
[…]
Phillips’ attack on the child and his parents stated that they were racists and hateful. He can claim that this was merely an opinion. The use of the headdress could be treated by a court as opinion since many denounce such images as cultural appropriation. What constitutes racist imagery is a matter of public debate and Phillips can argue that this is obviously just his opinion.
[...]
In the defamation action, Armenta could claim that he falls under the lower standard for defamation actions.
[…]
This child was clearly not a public figure before Phillips shoved him into public notoriety. Since the incident, the family has engaged the media and would not constitute at least limited public figures.
They could also sue for false light given the use of an image of only half of the child’s face. While some states have rejected false light claims in favor of using defamation actions exclusively, many recognize both claims.
Under a false light claim, a person can sue when a publication or image implies something that is both highly offensive and untrue. Where defamation deals with false statements, false light deals with false implications.
[…]
This case screams of reckless disregard. All Phillips had to do is literally look at the boy’s full face. Yet, Phillips may claim that it would not matter. He still believed that the headdress and appearance remain racist and disrespectful. A court could easily view that question as a matter for the jury to determine.
Deadspin did this all to themselves. And thanks for making media even less trustworthy.https://t.co/Az8HeTFfWt
— Nick Gillespie (@nickgillespie) February 7, 2024
The 9 year old Chiefs face paint fan kid that @deadspin said was wearing black face and was a racist is suing Deadspin. Bankruptcy is coming. Enjoy! https://t.co/f6eDk1CWmV
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) February 7, 2024
Deadspin became something of a refuge for the former writers of Gawker, which was shut down ironically due to the same issue: publishing a story—the Hulk Hogan sex tape—getting sued, losing, and then being forced into bankruptcy. Is Deadspin next? One can only hope.
