The College Fix

‘The publication went beyond an expression of opinion …’

This past week a Delaware court allowed a defamation lawsuit filed by the Armenta family to move forward against the sports site Deadspin.

The suit is based on Deadspin writer Carron Phillips’ since-edited article from late last year in which he blasted the Armentas for allowing their son to dress up in a Native American headdress and Kansas City Chiefs face paint.

The boy was “disrespect[ing] two groups of people at once” (Native Americans and blacks) Phillips wrote, given the headdress and a snapshot of his face which showed only the black paint.

Phillips (pictured) further claimed the kid’s costume was like “Jon Gruden’s emails come to life” (in 2021 emails revealed the former Super Bowl-winning NFL coach had uttered racially charged comments about a black player a decade earlier), and that it wasn’t just poor parenting by the Armentas but the result of society “banning” books and criticizing critical race theory.

In a tweet responding to critics at the time, Phillips wrote “For the idiots in my mentions who are treating this as some harmless act because the other side of his face was painted red, I could make the argument that it makes it even worse. Y’all are the ones who hate Mexicans but wear sombreros on Cinco.”

As reported by Reason, Judge Sean Lugg on Monday noted that “generally, statements labeling a person as racist are not actionable […] but there is a legally significant distinction between a statement calling someone a racist and a statement accusing someone of engaging in racist conduct; expressions of opinion are not protected if they imply an assertion of an objective, defamatory fact.”

MORE: Another kid tarred for ‘blackface,’ this time by anti-white, anti-trans sports writer

Lugg cited the cases Overhill Farms, Inc. v. Lopez and La Liberte v. Reid as the basis for the Armentas’ case:

Deadspin’s audience could understand its portrayal of [the boy, H.A.] to mean that his entire face was painted black and, because his entire face was painted black, it was H.A.’s intent to disrespect and hate African Americans. The publication went beyond an expression of opinion and flatly stated H.A.’s motivation for appearing as he did. …

While arguably couched as opinion, the author devotes substantial time to describing H.A. and attributing negative racial motivation to him […] To say one is a racist may be considered opinion, but to plainly state that one’s attire, presentation, or upbringing demonstrates their learned hatred for identifiable groups is actionable. A reader may reasonably interpret the Article’s assertion that H.A. was wearing Black face as fact …

Lugg disagreed with Deadspin’s assertion that La Liberte and Overhill Farms are “outliers from decisions recognizing that accusations of racist behavior are ‘inherently subjective and therefore non-actionable.'”

The New York Post noted that following Phillips’ original article the Armentas began receiving death threats — with one threatening to put their boy into a “wood chipper.”

Armentas attorney Elizabeth Locke said “Deadspin and Carron Phillips have never shown a morsel of remorse for using a 9-year-old boy as their political football.” She added her clients are looking forward to going to trial.

MORE: Middle schooler’s ‘blackface’ suspension upheld despite legal warning from free speech group

IMAGES: Ulf Wittrock/Shutterstock,com; Carron Phillips/X

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter