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.
The senior Deadspin writer had a Pavlovian response in a scathing article on the boy’s “racist” and “disrespectful” appearance.
“It takes a lot to disrespect two groups of people at once. But on Sunday afternoon in Las Vegas, a Kansas City Chiefs fan found a way to hate black people and the native americans at the same time…Despite their age, who taught that person that what they were wearing was appropriate?”
Phillips also denounced the NFL for “relentlessly participating in prejudice.” In a now-deleted tweet, Phillips later called people “idiots” for “treating this as some harmless act.”
Of course, the full picture showed that Armenta had the other half of his face painted in red paint — the Chiefs colors. It also turns out that he is Native American. Indeed, his grandfather is serving on the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.
The letter was sent by the new lawyer for Holden and his parents Shannon and Raul Armenta. Clare Locke LLP warned Deadspin that “[t]hese Articles, posts on X, and photos about Holden and his parents must be retracted immediately.”
These retraction letters are often the open salvo in defamation actions. The letter notifies Carron J. Phillips, Deadspin, G/O Media, and Great Hill Partners.
There are 33 states with retraction statutes. Other states effectively make such a letter a required step. States differ on the impact of retractions, which must be made within a set period of days or weeks. If a full and effective retraction is issued (and published as prominently as the offending statement), it can limit damages or bar punitive damages entirely in some states.
Missouri does not appear to have a formal retraction law, but it is still considered a necessary step. It shows an affirmative decision to stand by the story. The Deadspin article remains on the website, but was updated to include a statement from Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians denouncing the use of such headdresses in costumes.
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 Wilkow v. Forbes, Inc., 241 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2001), opinion prevailed as a defense. In that case, a journalist with Forbes was sued for harsh characterizations of a lawyer and his practice. Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that “although the article drips with disapproval of Wilkow’s (and the judges’) conduct, an author’s opinion about business ethics isn’t defamatory under Illinois law.” Notably, that article was not on an opinion page, but the court found that the expression of the journalists opinion was obvious from the tenor of the column.
In the defamation action, Armenta could claim that he falls under the lower standard for defamation actions.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court crafted the actual malice standard that required public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
The standard was later extended to public figures. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.”
A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).
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.
For example, in Gill v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 239 P.2d 630 (Cal. 1952), the court considered a “Ladies Home Journal” article that was highly critical of couples who claimed to be cases of “love at first sight.” The article suggested that such impulses were more sexual than serious. The magazine included a photo of a couple, with the caption, “[p]ublicized as glamorous, desirable, ‘love at first sight’ is a bad risk.” The couple was unaware that the photo was used and never consented to its inclusion in the magazine. They prevailed in an action for false light given the suggestion that they were one of these sexualized, “wrong” attractions.
In 1967, the Supreme Court handed down Time, Inc. v. Hill, which held that a family suing Life Magazine for false light must shoulder the burden of the actual malice standard under New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice William Brennan wrote that the majority opinion held that states cannot judge in favor of plaintiffs “to redress false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that the defendant published the report with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.”
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.
Deadpsin obviously values Phillips’ take on race as do journalists. Despite his past controversial writings, he was selected as the 2019 & 2020 National Association of Black Journalists Award Winner.
This case screams of reckless disregard.
True, but how is that relevant? The kid was not a public figure, nor was he a limited-purpose public figure. Therefore, proof of ordinary negligence is sufficient, right?
On that topic, you say: Since the incident, the family has engaged the media and would not constitute at least limited public figures.
What? Did you mean “would constitute” instead of “would not constitute”?
It is opinion. Full stop.
Anyone who supports the First Amendment must permit journalists to write opinion pieces, however malicious or dumb they may be.
That would be a good argument for his defense attorney to make. But how is it merely opinion to state that another person is a racist, or hates a certain race or ethnicity of people? To me that seems like an assertion of fact, not opinion. Can you convince me it’s an assertion of opinion only, either in general or in the context of this case? (Hint: the phrase “full stop” has no meaningful content and will be insufficient to convince me.)
Also, isn’t it a factual claim to say he wore “blackface”? The kid’s face was painted half-black and half-red, indicating a Native American theme, not African American (see satirical article below for another example of a “partially-black” face). To refer to that as “blackface” together with a misleading photo is certainly a false factual claim, no?
https://babylonbee.com/news/journalists-condemn-little-leaguer-for-wearing-12-blackface
I laid out the citation to relevant case law and a quote specifically re: the claim of “racist” from NC below.
According to the OED, “Blackface”: “Originally U.S. Make-up worn by a non-black person to imitate the appearance of a black person, esp. as part of a performance; the practice of… Blackface was a popular form of entertainment from 1830–1965 in the United States, particularly in minstrel shows (see minstrel, n. 3a), but is now generally regarded as offensive.”
The definition does not require the individual to fully cover the face. Partial coverage thus counts, in which case, the claim is true.
Alternatively, given the intention element of the definition, it could be considered a conclusion drawn by the observer regarding the rationale for the make-up (i.e., to imitate a Black person). If that is the case, then it is covered as opinion (just like “racist”).
Either way, there is no case here for defamation.
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=blackface
I would hope we can agree the Oxford English Dictionary is the best way to define the term?
to imitate the appearance of a black person
That’s the key part of the definition. This kid clearly was not doing that by any objective measure. Half his face was red. I’ve never seen an African American where half of his face is red, and I doubt you have.
Yes, it is a key part of the definition. I would be fine agreeing that the conclusion of “blackface” is an opinion because one must interpret the meaning of the act.
Calling someone an “copycat” because you believe they have copied someone else’s work is a similar type of opinion. In both instances, the commenter must interpret the meaning of another’s act.
Would you think labeling someone a “copycat” is a fact or opinion? This seems pretty obvious to me.
By your own definition, blackface only occurs when the person is applying the face paint to imitate the appearance of a black person. You quoted that definition from the OED, and it is a good definition.
There is simply no reasonable way to interpret this kid’s face paint as such an attempt. This isn’t even a close question. You’d be better off sticking to the issues where you actually have an argument. On this one you don’t, and your continuing to press the point only lowers your credibility.
The problem here is that you think the quality of the opinion is somehow relevant.
I could say, “New York is such a small town.”
You may think no reasonable person could have that opinion. It is one of the largest cities in the world.
But, whether my opinion is “good” is irrelevant to whether it is … an opinion that is protected under defamation law.
Whether it is reasonable for someone to interpret the kid’s face as racist is IRRELEVANT.
You need to stick to the argument in question (i.e., whether this is an opinion) and stop deviating into a normative question of the merits of said opinion. Capiche?
An assertion that he was wearing blackface is blatantly false in this case. It’s not a matter of opinion. Why? Because of (a) the definition you cited, combined with (b) the kid’s face was half red.
There is no more way to “opine” that that kid’s face paint was blackface than to “opine” that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. As I said below, time to cut your losses.
Your argument about whether calling someone a “racist” is a factual assertion or an assertion of opinion is much more interesting. This one is a slam-dunk in which you lose. And your refusal to acknowledge that you’re wrong on this point undermines your credibility in this discussion.
Alright. I’ll bite. We can go back to Second Grade. What is fact vs. opinion?
Would calling Quentin Tarantino or Tupac a “copycat” because a lot of their work is sampled/influenced by other artists a fact or an opinion?
Tarantino sues your op-ed saying that he in fact is neither a cat nor has he copied any other artist’s work. Do you owe him a boatload of money?
Give it up. The kid did not have “blackface.” If you interpret his face paint as an attempt to mimic an African American – a patently absurd interpretation – the problem is in your mind. That would be like me saying the Mona Lisa painting depicts a giraffe . . . and since art is subject to interpretation, i.e., simply a matter of opinion, nobody can say I’m wrong, we just have different interpretations.
You avoided answering the hypothetical re: copycat. But, you’ve offered another…
An article claiming that “Mona Lisa looks like a giraffe!” would be an opinion protected under defamation law.
Precisely my point.
To make that analogy work, we’d have to assume we live in a society where painting a giraffe is socially unacceptable and there are even laws criminalizing certain activities done while painting a giraffe . . . where if word gets out you’ve painted a giraffe, you’ll be shunned and possibly attacked. At least you’ll suffer emotional and economic consequences. Where saying “he painted a giraffe” is to call his moral stature into serious question.
No we wouldn’t.
“Like a giraffe” is an opinion.
“Is a giraffe” is a provable fact.
None of the rest of your comment is relevant.
To your earlier example…. Claiming the sun rises in the west is a fact that is provably wrong. That is completely different from.. “It is hot today.”
“The sum of 2 and 2 is 4” is a provable fact.
“Math is hard” is an opinion.
The above statements are true, even if you have a poll, showing that 0% of Americans think math is hard.
“The Mona Lisa is a painting” is a provable fact.
“The Mona Lisa is an ugly painting” is an opinion.
The above statements are true, even if you have a poll, showing that 0% of Americans think the Mona Lisa is an ugly painting. The merit of the argument is irrelevant!
Not sure how many more examples are needed.
You continue to try tie criminal law to whether something is fact or opinion. Why?
Defamation is a civil claim. It is not criminal. If a statement is an opinion, it is a complete defense to defamation. End of story. So, really if something is an opinion, that is the end of the analysis.
Yes, we would. My analogy to “the Mona Lisa depicts a giraffe” was offered for the limited point that sometimes what is couched as an opinion, is in fact provably wrong.
You then extended the analogy by pointing out that accusing someone of painting a giraffe, in our own society would not be actionable.
I merely pointed out that that claim took my analogy well beyond the limited point it was designed for. You are engaging in sophistry.
So, really if something is an opinion, that is the end of the analysis.
Yup, that’s what the professor means by the opinion defense. I’ve never denied that. What’s in dispute is whether the claim, “Jones is a racist,” is an assertion of fact or opinion. I’m afraid we’re simply not going to agree about that one.
In any event the giraffe example was in relation to the claim that the kid was wearing “blackface.” You then applied it to a claim that “Jones is a racist.”
My point still is: the sentence “The Mona Lisa painting depicts a giraffe” is objectively wrong, just as the sentence “the kid in the above photo is wearing blackface” is also objectively wrong.
Looks like a giraffe and is a giraffe are two different assertions.
Blacks never wore north American Indian head dresses. 99% of the ‘costume’ is native American or Chiefs. Less than 1% maybe, might be , but not really, Black.
“but is now generally regarded as offensive.””
“Generally regarded” doesn’t define jack.
And to address your question regarding why “racist” is an opinion vs. fact…
Calling someone a “racist” is a conclusion one draws, just like labeling someone a “Communist” or concluding that someone’s appearance reflects a “smirk” rather than a smile.
This can be differentiated from stating that someone took a specific act, such as joining the KKK. That is a provable fact.
Facts are provable. Opinions are not. Your opinion that someone is “racist” may differ from another’s. But, no one can question what is required to “prove” that someone joined the KKK.
This is the way I taught it to Second graders (albeit with different examples of course). The law follows this very simple construct.
Calling someone a “racist” is a conclusion one draws . . .
True, but that kicks the can down the road. Is it a conclusion of fact? I would say yes. It’s a factual assertion. Asserting that someone is a racist is an assertion that that person hates a particular race, isn’t it? And isn’t the question of whether Mr. X hates a particular race a question of fact?
I read the entire NC federal district court’s decision you referenced. You quoted the relevant part of it below. I’ve read that excerpt several times. It consists of a declaration that calling someone is a racist constitutes an opinion, together with a citation to several other cases. It does not provide any reasoning to back that up. I was trying to engage you in reasoning, not case citation.
Oldman,
Unless someone has says “I hate X” and the assertion is simply re-call of that statement, the conclusion that someone “hates” something is clearly an opinion. The opinion may be based on facts, but it is still an opinion.
This is akin to saying, “The weather outside is frightful.” You may base this on the snowstorm outside your window, but the conclusion that it is frightful is an opinion. By contrast, saying “there is a snowstorm outside” is a fact. If the meteorologist draws the conclusion of the weather’s “frightfulness,” then the statement, “The weatherman said the weather is frightful” is a fact, not an opinion.
As further examples, statements on a radio talk show that described the plaintiff as a “chicken butt,” “local loser” and “big skank” were not defamatory because they were “too vague to be capable of being proven true or false” and had “no generally accepted meaning.” Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting, 97 Cal. App. 4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
To use your framing, whether the plaintiff has the butt of a chicken was not a question of fact in that case. The label of “racist” is too vague. You can differentiate it from something like, “Mr. X is a thief” because there is generally accepted meaning of thief, which is provable.
If there were no clearly understood meaning of a “racist” then I would agree with you, it would be like calling someone a “big skank” or “chicken butt” or calling the weather “frightful.” These types of descriptors are known to be solely in the eye of the beholder.
But there is a clearly understood meaning of “racist” which relates to race-based feelings is in the other person’s mind (check your OED). Whether a person hates a particular race is a question of fact. Your argument to the contrary relies on the difficulty of knowing for sure what’s in another person’s mind. That is a “problem of proof,” or a question of sufficient evidence. But it doesn’t negate that the inquiry is one of fact.
Both criminal and civil law deal with issues of what’s in a person’s mind. Most frequently this manifests in the question of mens rea (i.e., the guilty mind). The four major levels of mens rea with which someone can commit a blameworthy act are purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. Juries often have to decide which level of mens rea is true in the case they sit on, and there’s rarely a statement by the defendant of exactly what he was thinking when he committed the crime. But the law deals with it: it allows the admission of other evidence that can inferentially shed light on the defendant’s mental state at the relevant time. Still . . . in the law mens rea is an issue of fact, not opinion. Juries are factfinders.
Same here. We’re talking about what’s in someone’s mind. If Smith says, “Jones is a racist,” he’s making an assertion of fact about what’s in Jones’s mind. If Smith instead says, “In my opinion Jones is a racist,” then Smith is making an assertion of what’s in his own mind about Jones, and in that event it’s accurate to term Smith’s speech as an expression of opinion.
FYI, Courts have routinely ignored “In my opinion…” as determinative of whether a statement is fact or opinion.
And there is no clearly understood meaning of racist.
To quote the general rationale for this position, from Judge Frank Easterbrook writing in Stevens v. Tillman (7th Cir. 1983):
The word [“racism”] has been watered down by overuse, becoming common coin in political discourse. Tillman called Stevens a racist; Stevens issued a press release calling Tillman a “racist” and her supporters “bigots.” Formerly a “racist” was a believer in the superiority of one’s own race, often a supporter of slavery or segregation, or a fomenter of hatred among the races…. Politicians sometimes use the term much more loosely, as referring to anyone (not of the speaker’s race) who opposes the speaker’s political goals—on the “rationale” that the speaker espouses only what is good for the jurisdiction (or the audience), and since one’s opponents have no cause to oppose what is beneficial, their opposition must be based on race….
The term has acquired intermediate meanings too. The speaker may use “she is a racist” to mean “she is condescending to me, which must be because of my race because there is no other reason to condescend”—a reaction that attaches racial connotations to what may be an inflated opinion of one’s self — or to mean “she thinks all black mothers are on welfare, which is stereotypical.” Meanings of this sort fit comfortably within the immunity for name-calling.
Language is subject to levelling forces. When a word acquires a strong meaning it becomes useful in rhetoric. A single word conveys a powerful image. When plantation owners held blacks in chattel slavery, when 100 years later governors declared “segregation now, segregation forever,” everyone knew what a “racist” was. The strength of the image invites use.
To obtain emotional impact, orators employed the term without the strong justification, shading its meaning just a little. So long as any part of the old meaning lingers, there is a tendency to invoke the word for its impact rather than to convey a precise meaning. We may regret that the language is losing the meaning of a word, especially when there is no ready substitute. But we serve in a court of law rather than of language and cannot insist that speakers cling to older meanings.
In daily life “racist” is hurled about so indiscriminately that it is no more than a verbal slap in the face; the target can slap back (as Stevens did). It is not actionable unless it implies the existence of undisclosed, defamatory facts, and Stevens has not relied on any such implication.”
I’ve read your mens rea analogy and have no idea why it is relevant other than as tangentially-related to provability.
My argument does not rely on the difficulty of knowing what is in one’s mind, other than the simple question of whether the statement in question directly came from the horse’s mouth (i.e., if the kid told reporters he was racist). If it did not, then the question is whether the statement involves a FACT that can be proven. This is the difference between THIEF and RACIST. Thief can be proven – did you steal anything? Racist cannot because it does not mean one clear thing to everyone using the term (as Easterbrook above notes.. back in 1983 even!) I would imagine things have only gotten worse since then. For some, it may have the meaning you ascribe – Does X think Y is inferior because of his race? But that is not the same meaning others give it.
And look more closely at the OED definition: “A person who is prejudiced, antagonistic, or discriminatory towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized; a person who subscribes to the belief that members of a particular racial or ethnic group possess innate characteristics or qualities, or that some racial or ethnic groups are superior to others. Also (esp. in early use): a person who is prejudiced, antagonistic, or discriminatory towards a person or people of another nationality.”
“Discriminatory” closely aligns with your understanding above. “Antagonistic,” however does not. This is similar to Easterbrook’s argument above. That some use the term as “condescending” because of one’s race. If you haven’t heard hundreds of folks use the term “racist” to mean someone is condescending to a person because of that person’s race (generally due to stereotypes, for example), then you are kidding yourself.
Then your argument is not that racist has always been a matter of opinion, but that in modern usage the term has been so watered down that it no longer means any definitive thing other than reflecting someone’s negative opinion of someone else?
I don’t deny that modern usage of language sometimes does that. I think that’s a better argument than suggesting that calling someone a racist in the traditional sense is a statement of mere opinion rather than an assertion of fact.
So . . . if you were Phillips’s lawyer, would you tell advise him that the plaintiffs have no colorable argument that his speech was actionable, and that we should write a letter back saying, in effect, “pound sand”?
Language is, of course, constantly evolving, and defamation law should reflect current language. Race is a social construct and as such is even more susceptible to evolving definitions.
Unless the comment specified — “I think Mr. X is a racist as the 18th Century common American man understood it,” why would we use an older definition?
I would absolutely tell Phillip (likely Deadspin’s the client), there is no real legal claim here. But, as you know, that does not always mean one should pound sand. Making it go away via settlement may be a better business decision given these polarized times.
Do you think Mr. Phillips was using the term in a modern, watered-down, Easterbrook way – that is, a racist-really-means-I-just-have-a-negative-view-of-his-outfit kind of way?
An example of this is that many laws mete out harsher punishments when a crime is committed with a biased or racist purpose. That was true in the famous case of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that that question was one of fact, and as such, had to be decided by a jury (not a judge) before the harsher penalty could be imposed.
In a jury trial, the jury is the judge of the facts, and the judge is the judge of the law. The jury never decides questions of law, only questions of fact.
The jury never decides questions of law, only questions of fact.
I have little stomach for disagreeing with a lawyers take on the law.
But . . . Juries have all the power they need to decide questions of law. Jury nullification is real. The common mans plenary power.
I don’t see how the reporting was false. The kid was in blackface. And the outfit was racist.
A face half black and half red is not blackface, you idiot.
It is racist against Native Americans.
Did you read the part where he IS Native American and HIS GRANDFATHER “. . . is serving on the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.”???
Can you not read and comprehend simple facts?
Oh, sorry, facts. Facts are an anathema to leftist.
The red and black are representative of two of four team colors. Are the team’s colors racist against Blacks, Whites, American Indians and Asians? Your icon on your profile then is racist against Blacks and Asians.
How is it racist, Sammy?. Be precise.
What definition of the term are you using? Which dictionary requires full coverage?
ATS, your question is stupid and doesn’t advance the discussion.
Here is the definition from Merriam-Webster: “dark makeup worn to mimic the appearance of a Black person ”
The use of red demonstrates the intention was different from mimicking the appearance of a black person.
You then must opine as to one’s intention. Thus, it is an opinion.
You may disagree with the opinion, but that has no bearing on whether it is a fact or opinion.
Seriously, everyone needs to go back to 2nd Grade.
ATS, you live up to your name, Anonymous the Stupid. You keep shuffling around the court like a drunk, hoping someone else slips. When you realize how stupid you sound, you resort to another tactic: “Thus, it is an opinion.”
You are rightfully an outcast of the blog, and more and more people are noticing. Keep hiding, keep lying and keep trying to screw up decent people who are here to exchange ideas. You are a waste of time.
How is wearing a ceremonial headdress racist? Be precise, please.
This is irrelevant to whether there’s a defamation claim.
If you support the First Amendment, you should support the ability for journalists to write opinion pieces, however dumb they may be.
You loaded the rabbit in the hat. If we *assume* it’s just an opinion piece, that’s one thing. But the professor lays out why it may be actionable defamation, and not mere opinion. Simply assuming your own answer to a disputed question is one of the weakest form of argument.
Agreed, and as Turley points out, outside of the “blackface” claim, which was clearly true, the other claims are opinion.
If the legal professor actually cared to site relevant case law (instead of … California?), then it would be clear that this will not go very far.
“[S]tatements of opinion, even if made maliciously or insincerely, are afforded absolute privilege under the free speech clause of the First Amendment and cannot be actionable [defamation].” Hammer v. City of Osage Beach, 318 F.3d 832, 842 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Pape v. Reither, 918 S.W.2d 376, 380 (Mo. App. 1996)).
And, here is a NC court, which clarifies that labeling an individual as a “racist” is an expression of opinion:
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/20/is-it-libelous-to-falsely-call-someone-a-racist-white-supremacist-socialist-or-communist/
“Statements indicating that Plaintiff is racist are clearly expressions of opinion that cannot be proven as verifiably true or false. While there appears to be no North Carolina court expressly addressing this issue, many courts in other jurisdictions that have faced the issue of defamation claims based on accusations of bigotry or racism have held the statements to be nonactionable statements of opinion. See, e.g., Stevens v. Tillman (7th Cir. 1988) (holding that neither general statements charging a person with being racist, unfair, unjust, nor references to general discriminatory treatment, without more, constitute provably false assertions of fact); Standing Comm. on Discipline v. Yagman (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that calling a judge “anti-Semitic” was a non-actionable opinion); Ward v. Zelikovsky (N.J. 1994) (accusation that plaintiffs “hated Jews” nonactionable); Covino v. Hagemann (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) (dismissing defamation claim based on statement that plaintiff was “racially insensitive,” observing “an expression of opinion is not actionable as a defamation, no matter how offensive, vituperative, or unreasonable it may be” and “[a]ccusations of racism and prejudice” have routinely been found to constitute non-actionable expressions of opinion); Williams v. Kanemaru (Haw. Ct. App. 2013) (accusation of racism based on disclosed facts not actionable for defamation); Lennon v. Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (“appellant’s being called a racist was a matter of one employee’s opinion and thus is constitutionally protected speech, not subject to a defamation claim”).”
While I agree that the Deadspin article was dumb, that is not the legal standard for defamation.
The blackface claim was clearly false, not clearly true. Check out the full photo of the kid’s face.
What dictionary definition of “blackface” are using, which requires full coverage? Be specific.
See above, regarding the Oxford English Dictionary definition, which is the gold standard for legal analysis.
Do you really think the child was attempting to appear to be black???
F–k off with that nonsense.
That is a matter of opinion, which is the whole point. Whether the opinion is a good one is irrelevant.
No, there’s no way to interpret that kid’s face paint as an attempt to mimic an African American. Pressing this point makes you look ridiculous. Time to cut your losses.
Again, any discussion about the reasonableness of the opinion is irrelevant to whether it is a fact or opinion.
I don’t care how unreasonable the argument is.
Take these really dumb examples:
“New York is a small town.”
“The Chiefs are a bad football team.”
“Joe Biden is youthful and healthy.”
None of these are good takes. But they are still….. drumroll…. OPINIONS.
Was this the same ATS who infamously exclaimed “evidence is only admissible if its incontrovertible”???
After that, who cares about his analysis of case law???
Zero credibility.
Jimmy,
They have an awesome ability to spin themselves into circular logic or should I say ill-logic.
Zero credibility is right.
No.
This is America. We have rules (of evidence).
Yes, and there is no such rule.
Please tell us of the damages caused to blacks, NAs, anyone…There is none.
Go listen to the Harvard diversity hire president from Tuesday in congress explain that to you.
I am glad to see so many who have been victims of the woke/prog/left ideologies’ use of blunt force trauma fighting back – whether with a gun in a store being looted, a professional whose career is being slandered or a small child whose parents are pushing back against attacks. THE ONLY way to end this tyranny of threats/attacks is to push back harder against all that the left is throwing at us. You cannot negotiate or coexist with these types and even Trump knows to never cede an inch to them or they will roll over you and claim the day.
Turls has been sent out to whip up defamation points as his employer shells out hundreds of millions for actual defamation. Totally hilarious.
The person targeted by Phillips, and the publication that employs him, is a minor. There are laws on the books to protect children, period. There are scores of people, rightfully so, in prison for speaking to anyone on the internet in a sexual way who looks underage. The same standard must apply to ordinary episodes of harassment. The public must be reminded to keep their hands, their eyes, and their political agenda off of children.
This is the Left — attacking children publicly, and molesting them in private. These are dark forces whose goal is to destroy civil society and the Four Olds. Combine that with 100 million illegals (the Left’s goal to create a one party state and a new underclass completely dependent on the government) and the destruction of the currency, it’s an all-out attack on the United States from within and without.
@KBigg Re:”an all-out attack on the United States from within and without.” The joke is always on the delusional advocates whose conviction it is that “all animals are equal” and that THEY will be on the reviewing stand while the proletariat stands on line for stale black bread. When the “more equal” comes for THEM there’ll be no one RIGHT to protest.
Just when I thought journalists could not get any more dumber, this guy proves me wrong.
I hope the journalist never watches a UGA football game. There are many students with red/black paint… some even completely red and completely black! The horror!
Another self-hating person of color who could serve as the subject of a doctoral thesis in the psychopathology of reversed racism which is doing everything it can to reverse all that’s been accomplished in the past 70+ years to break down walls. Separate and unequal is now back in vogue only the colors of the checkerboard have changed.
Carron is a feminine name of Greek origin, a respelling of Karen from Katherine, meaning “pure.”
Sounds like cultural and gender appropriation….
^^ From Jimmy/Estovir’s talking point meeting at the Russian troll farm this morning.
^^From the delusional mind of the booger eating, grass cutting, scrotum licking kunt known as Elvis Bug, aka Smeagol, and his meeting with Gollum, from their book of irrelevance.
Personally, I think this was a clear and very intentional misrepresentation of the facts by Deadspin’s Carron J. Phillips in a clear effort to smear and defame the child and his family as racists to gin up anti-white hate in the public. In my opinion, Carron J. Phillips is a anti-white racist and a bald-faced liar, Deadspin knows exactly what he’s doing, and I hope Deadspin and Carron J. Phillips get sued into oblivion.
Anti-white hate filled screeds from racists, like Carron J. Phillips, are intentionally undermining race relations in the USA. I wouldn’t care one bit if this incident makes Carron J. Phillips an unhireable pariah and he looses everything he has. Socially cancel that hate filled POS.
The Atlanta Braves did have their fans do the Tomahawk Chop early in their tenure in Atlanta. The even had a Teepee in the area between the fence and wall in left field at Fulton County Atlanta Stadium. Chief Nock-a-homa would do a dance in front of the Teepee after each home run . Eventually after several years it was phased out. It was fun though because with Hank Aaron, Eddie Mathews, Felipe Alou, Clete Boyer, Joe Torre and Orlando Cepeda, there were a great number of home runs being hit.
He’s a *child* enjoying a sporting event.
Is there nothing sacred to the race hucksters?
Sports use to be an escape from life, There were no ‘sides’ just rivalries.
ESPN changed all that some years back when they went all woke. Pushing the woke flavor of the day. Their commentary is stomach churning.
Somehow, I seem to get really offended when a supposed grown up acts Ike an imbecile while castigating a child who is out celebrating his team. The dead spin writer seems to have no sense of proportion, no class and an abject loss of decency as well as appearing unhinged. I’m sure that the Tribe’s statement about headdresses would not necessarily apply to a member of their own tribe wearing a headdress. Obviously this writer has no life and his/her existence is severely constrained by only looking for things to be offended by. What a truly miserable existence that must be. One would even have to think that some type of personality disorder or mental illness might be affecting this writer, to express such hate and vitriol against a child. Deadspin is now Dead to me.
“What a truly miserable existence that must be.” Indeed. I can’t possibly imagine waking up, yawning, scratching, etc., then deciding to start my day with, “ok world, who/what will offend me today?”
Let’s cut Phillip’s a break. Clearly he knows about cultural appropriation, witness the award he won: “National Association of Black Journalists Award Winner”
Isn’t the goal of the United States, massive cross cultural appropriation?
Falsely defaming an individual, should result in consequences.
The facts to date show the left never actually cares about what ever cause they are prostituting for there own personal agenda.
I did not look up the letter written by the kids tribe. But their statement in response to a question at the onset, was along the line of, ‘while we would prefer our members would not wear, ceremonial pieces, there are no rules or repercussions for doing so. A very indiginous policy.
Do you know Chiefs are not chosen? Well, not in the way you might think. The chief is the one, others follow. He has no power, but for the power of buy-in of the group. When the Chief decides it is time to move the camp, He starts packing. Following him is 100% voluntary. If half disagree, the tribe just splits. Very Libertarian
How far do you want to take it?
It’s a shame that Sports like the NFL will now have to be chased down after every little thing. But I suppose that since Colin Kaepernick
started taking a knee, the sport opened the door to wokeism.
Further shame that this young person is going to be “Tracked” for this, in addition to the School Tracking system.
Your ‘Record’ in life begins early. The injustice is that the Ones that spun this incident on to his ‘rap-sheet of life’ will just skip away and never suffer the consequences of Their indelible libel, he now has to live with for the rest of his life.
The Spinners don’t give a damn, they just want to carry on a mindless narrative to please their alter ego and line their pockets for free, at everybody else’s expense.
Shame, Shame , Shame …
“The 9-year-old wearing a chief feathers was doing the signature ‘Tomahawk Chop’.”
I thought it was the Atlanta Braves baseball team that had fans that do the tomahawk chop. I don’t recall that being a part of any NFL team’s fan base, but then I stopped paying attention to the NFL shortly after the Browns beat the Jets in the first Monday Night NFL game ever back in 1970,
It was the Florida State University Seminoles that started the tomahawk chop years before Atlanta Braves adopted it. Having attended Florida State football games since 1967 gives me a little street credit on the topic. Oscar Wilde said it best when he said ” Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness”.
“9-year-old Holden Armenta”
He’s a *child* enjoying a sporting event.
Is there nothing sacred to the race hucksters? Is there no innocence or reputation they would not destroy, in their lust to be eternally aggrieved?
Race hucksters need to be socially and culturally shunned no matter what race they happen to be.
Sam asks: “Is there nothing sacred to the race hucksters?” The answer to Sam’s question is “No!” Sam, may I introduce you to Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton and Jesse “Operation Push” Jackson?
it is absurd in America that you can be CANCELLED for dressing up! People have been copying cultural from BEFORE the first pyramid!!! It is great the kid is native American….but it SHOULDN’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
It is clear Democrats/globalists choose what EVER the worst action is. You should be ARRESTED if you PRETEND to be another gender for benefit, bathroom, sport, etc. That is FRAUD! Test the DNA…that is you sex, gender, etc. According to DEMOCRATS if I dress up as a girl…it is ok…but if I dress-up as an Native American or black…I should be cancelled?
And yes if people harass you…that is a CRIME. BTW hate crime laws are unConstitutional, EVERYONE deserve the SAME protection….special classes should not receive EXTRA laws, hetero white men should not receive LESS protection! BTW US colleges are proudly saying they will admit people…if they CLAIM to be black in an ESSAY. TIME to TAKE AWAY US Colleges Federal Money!
Carron J. Phillips has a history of posting anti-white tweets and other comments and I think that this could possibly show malicious intent and not just negligence in attacking this kid. This is especially true when you consider that Deadspin also used an inflammatory picture of only one side of the NONE YEAR OLD CHILD’S face when they obviously had other pictures showing his entire team-colored face.
I hope the family sues, I hope the company goes bankrupt and I hope the writer ends up like Keith Olberman.
That is meant to say NINE YEAR OLD CHILD.