A judge in Delaware has denied Deadspin’s motion to dismiss a libel lawsuit brought by the home of a 9-year-old child over a history describing him as discriminatory based on his outfit hat and face color while attending a Kansas City Chiefs-Las Vegas Raiders activity last November. “The judge concludes that Deadspin’s claims accusing H. A. of wearing Black face and African hat to ‘hate Black people and the African American at the same time, and that he was taught this contempt by his relatives, ” Superior Court Judge Sean P. Lugg wrote on Monday, “are verifiably false claims of truth. ” The case was brought by Raul Armenta Jr. and Shannon Armenta in response to a tale authored by Carron Phillips and titled “The NFL needs to speak out against the Kansas City Chiefs lover in Black experience, Native hat. ” The account features a picture of one part of H. A. ’s face, which was painted in black, and does n’t show that the other side was painted in red. The picture was captioned, “Chiefs admirer on Sunday in … Black experience. ” H. A. had traveled to Las Vegas with his parents to attend the game and was dressed as a passionate Chiefs lover. Lugg wrote H. A. “wore Native American hat, painted his experience black and red and donned a Chiefs shirt. ” The story was edited several times and included such statements as: · “This [H. A. ] is what happens when you ban books, remain against Critical Race Theory and try to remove decades of love. You give coming decades [H. A. ] the weapons they need to develop and recreate prejudice better than before. ” · H. A. ’s mask “was as if Jon Gruden’s messages had come to life. ” · “The answers to all of those questions lead back to the NFL. … While it is n’t the league’s responsibility to stop prejudice and love from being taught in the home, they are a category that has persistently participated in discrimination. ” Deadspin insists the narrative is non-defamatory since it reflects claims of mind. Mind statements are typically protected by the First Amendment. They can’t give rise to sustainable libel statements since they can’t get proven false. A statement of opinion is only that—an opinion—and personal appearance. An opinion is not realistically true or false, and slander concerns misleading statements that hurt a person’s status. Another factor in Deadspin’s favor is that labeling a person “racist ” generally does n’t count as defamation. Even though such a label is “exceptionally negative, insulting and highly charged, ” Lugg noted, it ’s typically not defamatory because it “lacks precise meaning” and “can imply many different kinds of fact. ” Deadspin maintains that writing H. A. wore Black mouth is equivalent to calling H. A. a discriminatory. Lugg disagreed. He identified a “legally important distinction ” between calling someone a racist and accusing someone of engaging in racist do. The story, the judge wrote, “went beyond an expression of opinion ” because it “flatly stated ” what it saw as H. A. ’s “motivation ” for painting his face black—an “intent to contempt and dislike African Americans. ” Lugg added that Deadspin readers could have reasoned, based on Deadspin’s wording, “that H. A. ’s whole face was painted dark. ” Lugg even observed that a Deadspin readers may have surmised, suddenly based on language, that H. A. wore a Local American hat “as a sign of contempt to that people. ” The assess more highlighted how Phillips “devotes considerable time to describing H. A. and attributing bad cultural motivation to him ” and appears insulting toward his relatives by suggesting they taught their child racist values. “To say one is a racist may be considered mind, ” Lugg wrote, “but to plainly state that one’s clothes, lecture, or culture demonstrates their learned contempt for identifiable parties is practical. ” The case was brought in Delaware, where Deadspin ( through G/O Media ) is incorporated. Lugg rejected a motion by Deadspin to relocate the case, finding that Deadspin will not “suffer an overwhelming hardship in defending itself in the state of its corporate home. ” The situation then moves to the pretrial discovery phase, where both sides can require sworn statements and data, including emails and texts. Expect the Armentas to seek a timeline of Deadspin’s editing process, from when the story was pitched, to how the editors reviewed and approved the concept, to how the photo and accompanying caption were selected, and to how edits were made after the story was published. Any evidence that points in the direction of Deadspin moving forward with the story despite worries the story misrepresented and maligned a child would be crucial. The Arementas claim their son has been the victim of bullying in school as a result of the story and that he has lost friends and struggled with schoolwork. They also fear their son will be associated with the controversial story when people search his name on Google.
