Defamation Lawsuit Against Deadspin Not Dismissed
Defamation Suit Continues
A defamation lawsuit against the online sports magazine, Deadspin, will proceed. The suit is related to an article that accused a 9-year-old boy of wearing "blackface" to a football game. The Delaware judge, Sean Lugg, rejected Deadspin's argument that the article was opinion and therefore protected from defamation liability. He stated that the publication had crossed a line in its description of the child.
Details of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit was initiated by Raul Armenta Jr. and his wife, Shannon, on behalf of themselves and their son, Holden, who is of Chumash Indian descent. The boy had painted his face black and red, the colors of the Kansas City Chiefs logo, and wore a Native American headdress during a game between the Chiefs and the Las Vegas Raiders. Deadspin writer Carron Phillips published an article criticizing the boy's attire and questioned the NFL's commitment to its "social justice initiatives".
Repercussions of the Article
The article led to hateful messages and even death threats to the Armenta family. The family demanded a formal apology and retraction from Deadspin, which the magazine declined, leading to the lawsuit. Deadspin defended itself by stating that Phillips’ statements were expressions of opinion and therefore not subject to defamation claims. However, Judge Lugg disagreed, stating that the article portrayed Holden as someone who intentionally used “blackface” to “hate Black people,” which amounted to a provably false assertion of fact.
Judge's Decision
Judge Lugg concluded that Deadspin’s statements accusing Holden of wearing blackface and a Native headdress to hate black people and Native Americans, and that he was taught this hatred by his parents, were provable false assertions of fact and are therefore actionable. Deadspin also sought dismissal based on jurisdiction, arguing that the case should be filed in California, where the Armentas reside, rather than Delaware, where Deadspin’s former parent company, G/O Media, is incorporated. The judge rejected this argument as well.
Update on the Article
As of now, the article in question is still up on Deadspin’s website but has been updated to remove photos and identifying details about the boy. The headline has also been revised “to better reflect the substance of the story.” Deadspin’s editors wrote in a note, “We regret any suggestion that we were attacking the fan or his family.”
Armenta Family's Representation
The Armentas are represented by Clare Locke, a firm specialized in defamation cases. Elizabeth Locke, an attorney for the Armentas, said in a statement, “The Armenta family is looking forward to taking depositions and presenting this case to a jury at trial.”
G/O Media's Response
A spokesperson for G/O Media said the company had no comment.
Bottom Line
This case serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of publishing content that can be perceived as defamatory. It raises questions about the line between opinion and defamation, and the responsibility of media outlets in ensuring their content does not harm individuals. What are your thoughts on this case? Do you think the judge made the right decision? Share this article with your friends and let us know your thoughts. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.
