https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y This is the video in question, police again falling trap to the Streisand effect.
[deleted]
Afroman found not liable in defamation case
91–100 of 798 posts
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#92The judge really loved the cops for some reason. So embarrassing for him.
Well, he probably interacts with them on a daily/weekly basis, or at least other people from their department, and probably don't want to end up on their bad side. In the end, justice and freedom of expression seems to have prevailed, so doesn't really matter what the judge think/thought in the end.
If you think "justice and freedom of expression seems to have prevailed", then please consider the people who aren't famous and can't get media attention when this sort of thing happens to them. Justice and freedom of expression fail to prevail on the regular and this is just one win amongst many, many, many losses.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#93https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y This is the video in question, police again falling trap to the Streisand effect.
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…
[flagged]
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#94Going 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.
The ACLU called it a SLAPP lawsuit. If true, they probably didn't care if they won or not.
That said, going on stand when your opponent has proven they can and will use your words and actions against you in the court of public opinion is a... bold strategy.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#95"Mr. Foreman was not at home during the 2002 police raid, but a security camera system and his wife, using her cellphone, recorded the “faces and bodies” of the officers while they were on the property, according to the lawsuit" "2002" New York Times, everyone. Props to afroman for his perfect demeanor/attitude during all this.
2022. I'm not sure phones recorded useful video in 2002.
Right. It’s a little hard to parse but they’re saying “The NYT has a typo”
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I was raised by LEOs. My mother and all four of her husbands were career long LEOs in the South. Of course this is just based on my anecdotes, but LEOs have some of the thinnest skin imaginable. The first time I fought a grown man was when I was 13 and I had to fight my mother's fourth husband. He was a Deputy Sheriff and combat veteran and that dude had the emotional strength of a 12 year old girl who didn't get ask…
It seems the job selects for those types. I suppose people interested in law enforcement / justice that aren't that way either end up as lawyers or working for the FBI or something.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#97I 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.
[deleted]
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#98The judge really loved the cops for some reason. So embarrassing for him.
Well, he probably interacts with them on a daily/weekly basis, or at least other people from their department, and probably don't want to end up on their bad side. In the end, justice and freedom of expression seems to have prevailed, so doesn't really matter what the judge think/thought in the end.
For this one case. He seems to be a horribly biased judge though from what I saw in this case over the three days.
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#99It gives me immeasurable delight seeing afroman at the top of HN. Love me some freedom, sweet soulful music, and pie in the face of bad cops. Dang/Tom, please don't downrank this. America needs this win.
[flagged]
Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
#100As fellow Ohioan Chrissie Hine and The Pretenders said, "Ay, oh, way to go, Ohio." Yeah, it was from "My City Was Gone," which isn't a pleasant song about the state, but pfft, it works here.
It works here because it isn't a pleasant song about Ohio.