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

131–140 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#131

Post by BLKNSLVR »

embedding-shape wrote: post #26
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.

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 hope he makes another song with additional material from the court case.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#133

Post by ceejayoz »

sneak wrote: post #101
embedding-shape wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Justice didn’t prevail. Afroman had to spend THOUSANDS defending himself in this bullshit civil lawsuit, and his countersuit got thrown out because police have qualified immunity. This is after they raided his house, bashed in his door, broke his cameras, stole his money, and then didn’t charge him with a single thing (and only returned part of the money). There is no justice here.

One of my local (several states away) bakeries announced a "Afroman lemon cake macaron" today.

His legal costs are gonna be tiny versus his YouTube/Spotify revenue out of all this.

(And I wouldn't ignore the value he probably applies to being proven right in court, either.)

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#135

Post by NoSalt »

> "On March 14, 2023, seven Adams County police officers sued Foreman, alleging that his use of the video of the raid invaded their privacy."

THEIR privacy?!?!? Their privacy ... in his home? This is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#136

Post by NikolaNovak »

I have a potentially silly question, and obviously naive - but why so many drawn guns? Fun music videos aside, what was the background here? Were they coming in on a Massive gang fortress? Or are all the stereotypes of American police forces true and they just come guns a-blazing all the time? I mean, that wasn't even police officers with hand guns, they have army-like guys with massive automatic rifles, and they seem to keep them drawn and hair triggered throughout the search? :O

(on aside, I do enjoy watching British crime procedural shows as contrast, where seemingly nobody has guns and they have to call in a special unit if they actually need somebody with a handgun)

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#137

Post by ceejayoz »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #136

I have a potentially silly question, and obviously naive - but why so many drawn guns? Fun music videos aside, what was the background here? Were they coming in on a Massive gang fortress? Or are all the stereotypes of American police forces true and they just come guns a-blazing all the time? I mean, that wasn't even police officers with hand guns, they have army-like guys with massive automatic rifles, and they see…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop

Watch the short clip in https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/rcgkis/u... - American cops get shown Scottish cops' deescalation procedures, and they scoff at it.

"When you say preservation of life, it is… everybody's life. Ours has a pecking order. I'm just being honest."

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#138

Post by lightedman »

Drakim wrote: post #134
throwa356262 wrote: post #125

Serious question: how come the police have not paid for the damage they caused?

If the damaged party tries to sue the police for the damage they caused, the police can get the case instantly dismissed underqualified immunity.

Stealing things out of a person's fridge and eating it is not covered under qualified immunity.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#139

Post by athrowaway3z »

embedding-shape wrote: post #26
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.

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…

US Police are trained such that their first impression in any situation is to see how people are reacting to their authority, and if it's not acquiesced to go on high alert.

It's not that they couldn't understand; It's that it's a faux pas to question this way of thinking so nobody does.

Play that out long enough and you get clown shows like these.

Post reply on HN