Media Fails in Effort to Have Defamation Suit Tossed

A Kansas City Chiefs fan, a child, dressed with a headdress and face paint, looks on during an NFL football game against the Las Vegas Raiders, Sunday, Nov. 26, 2023, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/David Becker, File)

There is a saying that goes that, “If you don’t ask, the answer is always ‘no.’”

The meaning is that you have to assertively or courageously try in life to accomplish positive outcomes. However, the unethical people among us ask for things too, outcomes that they are not clearly not deserving of receiving.

Deadspin tried and the answer was “no” — as it should haven been. It perpetuated a falsehood — an absurd and damaging lie against a young child and his family — and now finds it is not protected from it as it overconfidently assumed.

There is some encouraging news: sometimes courts conduct themselves ethically and work as intended for society’s protection and betterment.

Let’s go over this story a little bit, analyze it and provide some important insights and advisory for you and what stress you or loved ones may be enduring or will could one day experience.

“A Delaware judge has refused to dismiss a defamation lawsuit against sports website Deadspin over an article accusing a 9-year-old NFL fan and his family of racism because of his game-day attire,” reports Randall Chase, writing for the Associated Press.

You read that right. The nonsense that a young child and his family are racist because of a color of face paint the boy wore to a football game, cheering on his favorite team. Could that have possibly been emotional reasoning and reckless reporting and publishing? Absolutely.

Reporters and publications almost always get away with unethical communication. That’s just a painful, immoral reality. It doesn’t make it acceptable or correct.

“The lawsuit was filed by California residents Raul Armenta Jr. and his wife, Shannon, on behalf of themselves and their son, Holden, who attended a game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Las Vegas Raiders last November,” Chase reports.

Let’s dig a little deeper for the specifics:

“According to the lawsuit, Holden, referred to in the lawsuit as ‘H.A.’ is a Chiefs fan who also loves his family’s Chumash-Indian heritage. He wore a Chiefs jersey to the game, with his face painted half-red and half-black, and a costume Native American headdress,” Chase writes.

“Holden got the opportunity to pose with Raiders cheerleaders and was also shown briefly during the television broadcast of the game, with his red-and-black face paint visible. An Associated Press photographer also captured an image of Holden showing both sides of the boy’s painted face.

“However, using a screenshot that showed only the side of Holden's face painted black, Deadspin writer Carron Phillips published an article the next day accusing the boy of being racist.”

Gobsmacked yet? Think about what Phillips claimed: a boy is racist while watching his favorite sports team of players of different races and that child is clearly, unquestionably revealing said racism because of black face paint on half his face with the color red on the other half. The boy must be sending a racist message.

What do people like to say? “Make it make sense.” Phillips analysis and conclusion is entirely illogical. It’s seeing offense and wanting it to be present. It’s imposing a rule on society in an instance where there is zero credible evidence of black paint being a painful blackface mockery of a part of our society.

“The NFL needs to speak out against the Kansas City Chiefs fan in Black face, Native headdress,” the headline on the article reads. “‘They’re doubling up on the racism,’” a subhead reads. “‘Are you going to say anything, Roger Goodell?’ — a reference to the NFL commissioner,” Chase reports Phillips as communicating.

Phillips wrote that the boy had “found a way to hate black people and the Native American at the same time.” He suggested that the boy had been taught “hatred” by his parents.

Is this a case of a reporter, editor and publisher acting professionally responsible? Morally responsible? If so, how? It’s in no way responsible and ethical.

What happened next could have been accurately forecasted.

“The Armentas started receiving hateful messages and death threats, with one person threatening to kill Holden ‘with a wood chipper,’ according to the lawsuit,” Chase reports.

Harassment and threats to murder — a child — communicated in graphic detail, inspired by an article that should have never been published or written (other than a venting exercise, quickly deleted by Phillips) for that matter.

People often double down in pride when given the opportunity to correct objective wrongdoing, mitigate damages and help heal legitimate hurts

“The Armentas say they made repeated demands for Deadspin to retract the article and apologize,” Chase writes.

Are those not reasonable requests? Answer: that question is, honestly, rhetorical.

“In response, Deadspin instead republished an edited version that retained the accusations of racism and continued to display Holden’s picture,” Chase reports.

Do you recognize what happened? Deadspin flipped the middle finger to the Armenta family and critics in a show of arrogance and ego. This was a golden opportunity to mitigate the problems and wrongful behavior and Deadspin bypassed it in the form of more uncivil and ethically wrong behavior.

“Deadspin later updated the article again, removing Holden’s picture and changing the headline to read, ‘The NFL Must Ban Native Headdress And Culturally Insensitive Face Paint in the Stands,’” Chase writes. “We regret any suggestion that we were attacking the fan or his family,” the article reads.

Do you recognize the mild, still problematic shift?

The heat was getting stronger against Deadspin and Phillips. The arrogance started to cool yet the ego was still in overdrive. The media outlet was still defending itself with its main point and edited headline and “soft sold” an insincere, dishonest expression of regret. It was robotic and performative.

Deadspin is holding on to being “right” over being open to learning and saying, “hey, we overreacted and were clearly wrong in assuming the colors black and red on the boy’s face were not attempts to demean any people in society, they were to support his team and its mascot. We badly erred and we’re very sorry to Holden and the Armenta family."

Since the publication kept flexing on the Armentas because Deadspin’s ego was too big for humility, the family sued for defamation.

Bad news, early. “Superior Court Judge Sean Lugg denied Deadspin’s motion to dismiss the Armentas’ lawsuit, rejecting arguments that the article was opinion and thus protected from liability for defamation.”

Deadspin leaders and its attorneys thought they had a media get-out-of-jail-free card from unethical, immoral and illegal communication.

Not this time with this type of communication and intent.

Defamation is a very hard win, yet not impossible, against reporters and media.

“Deadspin published an image of a child displaying his passionate fandom as a backdrop for its critique of the NFL’s diversity efforts and, in its description of the child, crossed the fine line protecting its speech from defamation claims,” judge Lugg wrote.

“Having reviewed the complaint, the court concludes that Deadspin’s statements accusing H.A. of wearing black face and Native headdress ‘to hate black people and the Native American at the same time,’ and that he was taught this hatred by his parents, are provable false assertions of fact and are therefore actionable,” Lugg added.

This is reasonable and honorable leadership from the bench, not to be taken for granted, because it is extremely rare in matters of defamatory actions and media misbehavior.

“Deadspin and Carron Phillips have never shown a morsel of remorse for using a 9-year-old boy as their political football,” Elizabeth Locke, an attorney for the Armentas, said in an email to Chase. “The Armenta family is looking forward to taking depositions and presenting this case to a jury at trial.”

Locke is communicating facts: Deadspin did violate a boy and his family, doubled down, tripled down and then fought and fought that it was entitled to defame. They did use the child who was a passionate fan and not racist, a family who didn’t act in a racist manner either. She and the Armenta family have a legitimate case and the judge correctly approved it to advance in the legal process.

The media is a formidable foe in claims of defamation against it. It isn’t, however, invincible. It does lose, has lost in court and additionally, the court of public opinion.

Deadspin is in deep legal trouble. It highly likely isn’t getting out of this wrongdoing as it shouldn’t and Phillips and the publication have a high probability going forward of having the irremovable stain of defamation against their names.

They will be financially poorer for the legal judgement and financial payout.

The “stop points” should have been the editor and publisher doing their jobs in an ethical, non-emotionally-driven, objective manner. Or failing that — as Phillips and Deadspin did — the reporter, editor and publisher should have dug deep and shown an immediate willingness to communicate that it exercised terribly bad judgement while also expressing sincere and believable remorse.

Then they could have — should have — backed it up with action (a bold, easy-to-find apology and retraction of the falsehood or deletion of the content and thorough, detailed, sincere apology).

It did none of it, fighting its ego all the way and thus, “here we are” — a credible lawsuit to defend — and likely lose and pay out.

Michael Toebe can help you respond best to people’s efforts to smear your name. He is the founder of Reputation Intelligence - Reputation Quality and a specialist for helping individuals and organizations through complex, challenging, dangerous experiences involving reputation and protecting them along the way. Contact him at 316-226-4071, reputation.intelligence.rq@gmail.com or through the form below.