Live data from Hacker News

Afroman found not liable in defamation case

nypost.com

191–200 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#191

One of the more interesting parts of the whole ordeal was officers getting on the witness stand and declaring that the lyrics that insinuated he had had sex with their wife were deeply traumatizing. People keep throwing around 'cuck' as an insult, but if trained officers of the law familiar with application of deadly force when necessary can be severely traumatized by the notion of another man sleeping with their wif…

It's important to remember to thank them for their service.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#192
post #64

I know things are bad in the USA right now, but news like these show that you still have your basic rights. This kind of song would not fly in any other country on Earth. No other country has Freedom of Speech laws strong enough to defend against insulting the police. There have been some people abusing their freedom in recent times cough Kanye cough , but for every loud nazi there are ten more excellent people whose…

> This kind of song would not fly in any other country on Earth. No other country has Freedom of Speech laws strong enough to defend against insulting the police.

What? There's lots of antifacist/rather left-wing music that heavily critizes the police and their work. Usually not the one police officer himself but rather the institution as being part of a state who behaves injust (is that a word? non-native here...). I think that's fine and is part of a democratic system.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#193
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Behold, the sea lion in its native habitat.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#194
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's one data point in a pretty large body of evidence; the FBI thinks they're infiltrating law enforcement in a widespread fashion.

A fascinating study from Stanford looked at police traffic stops nationally around the daylight savings switch (as a natural experimental control) and found pretty hard evidence cops treat black drivers very differently during the day (i.e. when they can see their skin color).

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/05/veil-darkness-redu...

Additional aspect of this: "you're a white supremacist" is almost certainly a First Amendment protected statement of opinion that can't be defamatory.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#195

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…

It's a country with a lot of guns. Police do regularly get shot at when raiding. And police departments get sent videos of every officer death from around the country and regularly watch them for "training purposes". So it makes sense that they are in a constant state of paranoia.

> Police do regularly get shot at when raiding.

I wonder what the ratio of police deaths during no knock raids vs peacefully served search warrants.

I certainly believe that bursting through someone’s door with guns drawn is a high risk activity. It seems like maybe no one needed to do that in this case, though.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#196

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.

Best to kill anything that moves; it's the only way to survive.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#197
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

[flagged]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#198

I don't understand how they found nothing in the raid, wouldn't they normally bring drugs with them to plant? If they forgot those that's a whole new level of police incompetence.

I guess they assumed that a musician whose whole persona is built around weed would supply the evidence.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#199
post #158
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…

Doesn't really matter since police officers are public officials. The bar for defaming a public official is actual malice, which is clearly not the case here. They need to prove that he deliberately said facts that he knew were false with the deliberate intention of harming them. It was also obviously a satirical song which further weakens the case. This is such a weak case it should have been thrown out before it ever reached trial.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a country with a lot of guns. Police do regularly get shot at when raiding. And police departments get sent videos of every officer death from around the country and regularly watch them for "training purposes". So it makes sense that they are in a constant state of paranoia.

> It's a country with a lot of guns. Police do regularly get shot at when raiding. Call me naive, but I think this could be solved by stricter gun laws. Yes, bad guys might have guns, but that's the case everywhere around the world. But being afraid that everybody could have a gun and use it against you while doing your work must clearly change something in your behaviour as a police officer... Why not calm down the…

That's like observing that we could probably solve the issue of people saying mean things on the internet by requiring ID to access it. You have to consider any expected negative consequences as well as if you'd be violating any rights.
Post reply on HN