'It cannot be denied America is in the midst of an ongoing national debate about what it means to be racist,' says Volokh

Deadspin published an image of a child wearing Native American headdress, painted his face black and red, and donned a Chiefs jersey.

A Delaware trial court allowed the Armenta family's defamation claim against Deadspin to go forward.

But there is a legally significant distinction between a statement calling someone a racist and a statement accusing someone of engaging in racist conduct.

In La Liberte v. Reid , a community activist brought suit after a television host republished two photographs of her at a pro-immigration rally with captions alleging racist conduct.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, explaining: A reader could interpret the juxtaposition of the photograph with the 1957 Little Rock image to mean that [plaintiff] likewise screamed at a child out of racial animus.

This Court may grant Deadspin 's motion under Rule 12(b)(6) only if "under no reasonable interpretation of the facts alleged could the complaint state a claim for which relief might be granted." Applying the analytical framework of La Liberte and Overhill Farms to the facts here, the Armentas maintain a "possibility of recovery." Libby Locke , David Sillers , and Jonathan Kaiman of Clare Locke LLP represent plaintiffs..