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

181–190 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#181

Post by behringer »

junaru wrote: post #158
NoSalt wrote: post #135

> "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.

This is not some footage issue, there apparently was a smear campaign online. FTFA: > After making the music video, Foreman allegedly continued putting up social media posts with names of the officers involved, the lawsuit states. > Several of the posts allegedly falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money” and were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,” according to the suit. > They also falsely stated that the…

It's not smears when it's (mostly) true or opinion.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#182

Post by ceejayoz »

tt24 wrote: post #180
ceejayoz wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> falsely claimed that the cops “stole my money” That appears to have happened; they're claiming it was a miscount. > were “criminals disguised as law enforcement,” Seems fair. (And opinion, which can't be defamation.) > They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. I'd note that the jury found Afroman not liable on all these.

> They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” > Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. Interesting, is there a source or some data you’re aware of that suggests that it’s a statistically safe assumption?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-i...

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#184

Post by dpark »

chneu wrote: post #159
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…

American police are trained to be afraid. They escalate situations constantly. They're trained that every traffic stop is LIKELY their last. I've had a gun pulled on me twice for traffic stops when I went to grab something. I'm white.

“Warrior mindset”. When you’re trained to assume that everyone you interact with is a lethal threat, you tend to react as such.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#185

Post by ceejayoz »

BurningFrog wrote: post #177
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…

When you break into someone's home you want to be ready for people with guns shooting at you. Politely giving them a few seconds of free shooting before you draw your guns is not a great survival strategy.

> When you break into someone's home…

So we're starting right off the bat with the false premise that this is the only approach cops can take in these scenarios.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#186

Post by HEmanZ »

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…

Yes. Kind of. Anything involving home invasion I’ve usually seen them go in like an occupying force. Including the time i called them because a small group was going around the neighborhood trying to break into houses. They show up with bullet proof vests and assault rifles at the ready and pull everyone out of their houses.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#187

Post by input_sh »

jrm4 wrote: post #114
jcarrano wrote: post #45

[flagged]

Feels like some unfair downvotes, so I'll ask again. In what other countries could one publicly shame the authorities this severely? I think that's what was meant here. And yes, it's great .

I'd work the same in pretty much any European country, as in you'd record them, you'd publish that, they'd make up some lame excuse why that's not allowed, it'd go to a court, and a judge would decide who was right case-by-case?

Not quite sure which part of this process do you think is even remotely unique to the US.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#188

Post by jollyllama »

radlad wrote: post #115
smt88 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Not sure he's "big MAGA" but I assume this is where the idea stems from - https://www.newsweek.com/afroman-explains-his-new-song-hunte...

It is interesting that his treatment is being cast in the light of racial politics rather than persecution of a political dissident.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#189

Post by ceejayoz »

iririririr wrote: post #154

was this on the regular media? I've been bombarded by this case on tiktok for the last 5 days. and i don't follow police, law, celebrity, or rap.

Yes.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/19/entertainment/afroman-lawsuit...

Including internationally:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq57557d6p6o

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#190

Post by tt24 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #182
tt24 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They also falsely stated that the officers are “white supremacists,” > Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. Interesting, is there a source or some data you’re aware of that suggests that it’s a statistically safe assumption?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-i...

Where in this article does it suggest that it’s a statistically safe assumption that most cops are white supremacists?
Post reply on HN