Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Afroman found not liable in defamation case

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#81

Post by delecti »

macNchz wrote: post #67
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.

There’s a name for that, SLAPP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ... Many states in the US have laws to try to limit them by making them easier to dismiss etc.

Yeah, the only reason I'm not quite sure SLAPP is right is that he's a fairly prominent and well-off figure and they're a pretty small department. So I guess it's an attempted SLAPP suit, but they aimed too high (poor aim not being unfamiliar to cops).

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#82

Post by JoshTriplett »

embedding-shape wrote: post #66
JoshTriplett wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is an event that took course over 3 years! I could understand the initial actions, statements and whatnot from the department to maybe be instinctual and emotional reaction to events/messages, but during these 3 years, at least one of them must have had some still time to reflect on what they're doing.

It's very easy to double down and reinforce your own past thinking rather than re-examining it. It's also very easy to "play a role", even as consequences play out; "reasoning" like "I will do X, then they will do Y which I don't want", rather than stepping back and thinking "if I do X, Y is likely to happen, I don't want Y to happen, so what should I do differently".

They assumed they were going to win, and thus enact punishment for questioning their authority.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#83

Post by cryptonym »

hedora wrote: post #63
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.

So, in the music video, the cops pretty clearly steal something (probably money, as alleged), and attempt to destroy evidence. They’re facing charges too, right? Right?

Yes and as a result they will give taxpayer money in a deal and, officer will be moved to nearby county.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#84

Post by plagiarist »

hedora wrote: post #63
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.

So, in the music video, the cops pretty clearly steal something (probably money, as alleged), and attempt to destroy evidence. They’re facing charges too, right? Right?

No, no way they could have known stealing money and destroying evidence is illegal. So the Post-It note on the old court case gives them qualified (absolute) immunity.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#87

Post by shadowgovt »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #55
embedding-shape wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a key insight.

Most "rational actor" theories of human behavior actually only work in the large (where the average can dominate outlier behavior) and in systems where rational action is a positive feedback loop ("a fool and his money are soon parted").

If those assumptions break down (especially the second, i.e. if foolish use of money results in more money accruing, not less), what we perceive as rational behavior should not be expected.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#90

Post by dghf »

subpixel wrote: post #73

I haven’t found any information about what cause the police had, why a warrant was issued, etc. I’m not suggesting suspicion has merit, but given all the idiocy I’m wondering what other forms of chicanery may have taken place to get a warrant.

Tip from a “confidential informant”, I believe I read somewhere.
Post reply on HN