You’ve probably seen the photo. A young kid at a football game, face painted, wearing a headdress, looking like a die-hard supporter. It seemed like a standard Sunday for a 9-year-old at an NFL game until the internet did what the internet does. Suddenly, a viral article turned a family’s afternoon in Las Vegas into a multi-year legal nightmare. Honestly, it’s one of those stories that makes you realize how quickly a single camera angle can change someone's life.
When the Kansas City Chiefs fan sues Deadspin, it isn't just a headline about a grumpy spectator. It’s a massive defamation battle involving Holden Armenta, a young boy who found himself at the center of a national firestorm over race, culture, and journalism ethics.
The Incident That Started It All
Last November, Holden Armenta attended a game between the Chiefs and the Las Vegas Raiders. Like many young fans, he went all out. He wore a Chiefs jersey, a Native American headdress, and face paint—half black, half red. The CBS broadcast flashed his face on screen for just a few seconds.
In those seconds, the camera captured him from the side. Specifically, the side painted black.
Deadspin writer Carron J. Phillips didn't wait for a second angle. He published an article titled "The NFL needs to speak out against the Kansas City Chiefs fan in Black face, Native headdress." The piece was scathing. It didn't just criticize the attire; it accused the 9-year-old of finding a way to "hate Black people and the Native American at the same time." Phillips even took it a step further, suggesting that Holden's parents, Raul and Shannon Armenta, were the ones teaching him this "hatred."
The backlash was instant, but not in the way Deadspin likely expected.
🔗 Read more: Cowboys Score: Why Dallas Just Can't Finish the Job When it Matters
Why the Armenta Family Decided to Fight Back
The reality on the ground was a lot different than the narrative online. First off, Holden is of Chumash-Indian heritage. His family argued that his outfit wasn't a mockery but a celebration of his own roots and his favorite team. More importantly, photos from other angles—including one from an Associated Press photographer—clearly showed the other side of his face was bright red.
He wasn't in "blackface." He was wearing team colors.
Basically, the family says they were blindsided. They started getting death threats. Someone even threatened to put the kid through a wood chipper. Can you imagine? Your 9-year-old goes to a game and suddenly people are talking about him like he’s a villain in a history book. The Armentas asked for a retraction. They wanted an apology.
Instead, Deadspin updated the article a few times. They changed the headline. They removed the kid's photo. But they didn't really say "we got it wrong." In February 2024, the family officially filed their lawsuit in Delaware, where Deadspin’s then-parent company, G/O Media, was incorporated.
The Court's Big Decision
For months, Deadspin tried to get the case tossed. Their lawyers argued that the article was "protected opinion." In the world of law, if something is an opinion, you usually can't be sued for defamation. They claimed they were just critiquing the NFL's diversity efforts and using the fan as a "backdrop."
💡 You might also like: Jake Paul Mike Tyson Tattoo: What Most People Get Wrong
But in October 2024, a Delaware judge, Sean Lugg, wasn't buying it.
He denied the motion to dismiss. The judge wrote that Deadspin's claims—specifically that the boy was taught to hate by his parents—were "provably false assertions of fact." That’s a huge distinction. Saying "I don't like his hat" is an opinion. Saying "this kid hates Black people because his parents taught him to" is an allegation of fact that you’d better be able to prove in court.
Key Developments in the Case:
- October 2024: Judge Sean Lugg rules the lawsuit can proceed to trial.
- March 2024: Amidst the legal heat, G/O Media sells Deadspin to a European firm called Lineup Publishing.
- Staffing Changes: The entire Deadspin staff, including Carron Phillips, was laid off by the new owners.
- The Defense: Deadspin continues to argue the First Amendment protects their right to critique cultural appropriation.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Lawsuit
A lot of folks think this is just about "cancel culture." It’s actually much more technical. Defamation for a private figure (which a 9-year-old kid definitely is) is easier to prove than for a celebrity. The Armentas don't have to prove "actual malice" the same way a politician would. They just have to prove that Deadspin was negligent—that they didn't do their homework before accusing a child of being a racist.
It's also worth noting the timing. Shortly after the Kansas City Chiefs fan sues Deadspin, the website essentially imploded. Whether the lawsuit was the primary reason or just the final straw for G/O Media is up for debate, but the timing is hard to ignore.
The family’s attorney, Elizabeth Locke, has been very vocal about the fact that they aren't looking for a quiet settlement. They want to take this to a jury. They want the world to see the "depositions" and the internal emails to see if the writers knew about the red paint before they hit publish.
📖 Related: What Place Is The Phillies In: The Real Story Behind the NL East Standings
What Happens Next?
This case is a massive warning shot for digital media. You can’t just grab a screenshot and build a narrative around a private citizen—especially a minor—without expecting some serious legal pushback.
If you are following this story, here is what you should keep an eye on:
- Discovery Phase: This is where the Armentas' lawyers get to look at Deadspin’s internal Slack messages and emails. If they find proof that the writer saw the "red paint" photos and ignored them, the damages could be astronomical.
- Trial Date: Now that the motion to dismiss has been denied, the court will set a schedule for a trial. We’re likely looking at late 2025 or even 2026 before this sees a courtroom.
- The "Gawker" Effect: Some legal analysts are wondering if this lawsuit will do to Deadspin what the Hulk Hogan case did to Gawker—bankrupt it entirely.
Actionable Takeaways for Readers
If you're a content creator or just someone who spends a lot of time on social media, there are a few things to learn from this mess. Honestly, it’s a lesson in "look before you leap."
- Verify the full context: One photo is rarely the whole story. Before sharing or commenting on "outrage" content, look for different angles or secondary sources.
- Understand the "Private Figure" rule: In the eyes of the law, people who didn't ask to be famous (like fans in the stands) have a much higher expectation of privacy and protection from defamation.
- Monitor the trial: The outcome of this case will likely redefine how "opinion pieces" are written in the future, especially when they target individuals who aren't public figures.
The Armenta family is still pushing forward, and with the judge’s recent ruling, they have a clear path to a jury. It’s a long road from a football stadium to a Delaware courtroom, but this case is far from over.
To stay informed on this case, you can monitor the Delaware Superior Court's public filings under the case name Armenta v. G/O Media, Inc. or follow legal news outlets that specialize in First Amendment and defamation law. Checking for updates on the discovery phase will provide the next major indicators of where this lawsuit is headed.