Afroman found not liable in defamation case • Hacker News Board

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#51

Post by anon84873628 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 1:13 PM UTC

hollywood_court wrote: post #37

Those cops embarrassed themselves. Especially that one lady that was faux crying. Shameful behavior from the largest gang in the US.

That didn't seem like faux crying. Making fun of her in that way is the hardest to defend IMO, since it had nothing to do with her job performance or relevant character attributes. (E.g. how the other officer had been accused of stealing before, or had a brother resign from the force after being charged with a crime involving a minor).

That said, I don't disagree with outcome.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#52

Post by embedding-shape » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 1:14 PM UTC

echelon_musk wrote: post #46

embedding-shape wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also probably a rare case where there are a few Streisand effect's all packed together, where the cops at each step made it worse for themselves. If they never did the raid in the first place, no music video, no "embarrassment". They could have cut their losses, and not made a big deal about it and probably way less people (including myself) would have ever heard about it. Instead they decided to sue, which made even…

> way less people (including myself) would have never heard about it I think the never here is a typo.

Thanks, `(subs "never" 1)` been applied now!

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#53

Post by sayYayToLife » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 1:14 PM UTC

Okay at first I was like this music is not my style, but the humor was so good.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#54

Post by JoshTriplett » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 1:14 PM UTC

delecti wrote: post #44

embedding-shape wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also probably a rare case where there are a few Streisand effect's all packed together, where the cops at each step made it worse for themselves. If they never did the raid in the first place, no music video, no "embarrassment". They could have cut their losses, and not made a big deal about it and probably way less people (including myself) would have ever heard about it. Instead they decided to sue, which made even…

I suspect it was less about the legal merits and more about punishing (whether or not they won) through the lawsuit itself.

Of course. Questioning their authority is a status challenge, and they're accustomed to having their status go unchallenged. Hence, punitive punishment.

One of many aspects of improving law enforcement would be pointedly training out and averting any perception of being "above" people. "Public servant" is a phrase for a reason.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#55

Post by JoshTriplett » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 1:15 PM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #50

delecti wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it was less about the legal merits and more about punishing (whether or not they won) through the lawsuit itself.

That was what I was thinking at first too, but if I was sitting on their side, my mind would still go for "Wait, if we sue him, won't this make the news and make things better for him?" immediately, rather than "Yeah, this will suck for him". I'm not sure how they thought this would be bad for him, legal costs?

You're assuming a rational, reasoned process, rather than an instinctive punishment of a perceived status challenge.

When you observe someone acting in a way that seems obviously against their self-interest, it is always worth considering the possibility that there's some interest you don't understand...but it's also worth considering the possibility that they're doing a bad job of considering their own interests.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#56

Post by anon84873628 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 1:15 PM UTC

snackbroken wrote: post #17

Going on the stand and stating that you "don't know" whether the allegedly defamatory statements you are suing over are true or not is a... bold legal strategy.

Or claiming you don't know what crime your brother was charged with that led him to resign from the same police department.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#57

Post by yread » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 1:17 PM UTC

Mashimo wrote: post #3

looofooo0 wrote: post #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y This is the video in question, police again falling trap to the Streisand effect.

Yes, but not limited to just that one. https://www.youtube.com/@ogafroman/videos He also has other videos where he calls one of them a pedofile, questioning their gender (Licc'm low lisa) and more.

> pedofile

apparently, the deputy in question has a brother who was a deputy as well but was fired and charged with a sexual misdemeanor against minors.

Afroman also said he steals money during traffic stops and he was accused of that multiple times.

Of course that's not bulletproof evidence but a reasonable person might assume these rumours are not completely unfounded

EDIT: also the deputy of course didn't steal the money. He miscounted - when seizing the money he put 4630$ in the envelope but wrote 5000$ on it (which is the amount Afroman thought he had there)

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#58

Post by embedding-shape » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 1:17 PM UTC

anon84873628 wrote: post #51

hollywood_court wrote: post #37

Those cops embarrassed themselves. Especially that one lady that was faux crying. Shameful behavior from the largest gang in the US.

That didn't seem like faux crying. Making fun of her in that way is the hardest to defend IMO, since it had nothing to do with her job performance or relevant character attributes. (E.g. how the other officer had been accused of stealing before, or had a brother resign from the force after being charged with a crime involving a minor). That said, I don't disagree with outcome.

Aren't cops by default public figures? They're the de facto face of the police for the ordinary citizen, not sure they should be the type of individual who cries because someone calls them fat, lesbian or whatever. These people have the legal right to essentially execute you in public, I think we should set the bar a bit higher on who should be allowed to be a police officer in the first place.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#59

Post by bonesss » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 1:18 PM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #24

Gotta say I love Afroman's choice of courtroom atire.

I made this joke in another thread, but: I keep imagining Afromans court getup as the formal attire for American civil lawyers. Like robes and wigs, suits n ‘fros.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#60

Post by sneak » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 1:18 PM UTC

lenerdenator wrote: post #31

embedding-shape wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also probably a rare case where there are a few Streisand effect's all packed together, where the cops at each step made it worse for themselves. If they never did the raid in the first place, no music video, no "embarrassment". They could have cut their losses, and not made a big deal about it and probably way less people (including myself) would have ever heard about it. Instead they decided to sue, which made even…

> don't cops have lawyers who can inform them about what is a smart move vs not? Generally, municipalities have at least some sort of attorney on retainer for this sort of thing. Generally. I don't know if that's the case where he lives. Either way, the police have to be smart enough to listen to that attorney, and have to be given a consequence for not doing so . If you can brush off everything as qualified immunity…

AIUI they sued him in their personal capacities, not as the police department. Any taxpayer funded lawyer to defend the PD from such a thing would presumably not be authorized to work a civil suit for a person who happened to be employed by his client.