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

221–230 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#221

Post by ceejayoz »

tt24 wrote: post #216
ceejayoz wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://n…

[flagged]

> This study seems unconvincing. We see that black drivers are pulled over more during the day - why does that necessarily mean that it’s due to their race?

Because on the day time shifted an hour artificially due to daylight savings, the racial discrepancy moved by an hour, even though the sun physically didn't.

(The alternative explanation is that black people all decide collectively to drive worse/better when daylight savings changes twice a year. Which seems... unlikely.)

It's an extremely clever approach. I'd encourage you to at least skim the article rather than asking questions it readily answers.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#222

Post by TheCoelacanth »

shadowgovt wrote: post #109
sneak wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn’t a 1A case, it was a civil defamation suit. He won because they failed to prove defamation, NOT because the judge threw out the lawsuit because of a violation of constitutional rights. Separately: saying something shitty or unpopular that you disagree with isn’t someone abusing their rights to free expression. Expressing unpopular viewpoints that others consider abusive is exactly the point of such rights.…

Perhaps interesting here is that some of the things he said were definitely not defensible via "truth is an affirmative defense." But it's ultimately up to the jury, and they can also find him innocent because a reasonable person wouldn't be offended by outlandish accusations. (Ultimately, though, they can find him innocent for any reason. If they decided he should walk because you can't legally offend cops, that's f…

Truth is far from the only defense.

Opinion is not defamatory. Satire is not defamatory.

With public officials like police, even false factual statements are not defamatory unless you knew they were false and lied about it specifically to hurt them.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#223

Post by johncessna »

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…

I'm not saying what they did was correct, but they were allegedly told that he had a drug operation and a kidnapping dungeon.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#225

Post by giraffe_lady »

iririririr wrote: post #141
caymanjim wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qualified immunity.

which is double genius on afroman, because they forfeited qualified immunity to start this trial. now he can even sue further damages. distrack as legal maneuver.

He is a seasoned professional at this. He was respected in the diss track game in his day, he definitely understands the boundaries of defamation. And what has long been known in rap in newspapers: even if you're right it's not worth it to be on the stand defending defamation. "It's average size your honor."

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#226

Post by parineum »

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...

You understand that white supremacist groups existing as cops doesn't make the majority of cops white supremacists, right?

I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#227

Post by nazgulsenpai »

smt88 wrote: post #99
postalcoder wrote: post #41

It 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]

Even if this were true, are we really so far gone in the political discourse that we can't appreciate a win as Americans because of the perceived political orientation of the recipient?

I think the answer is yes, but I still naively hold out hope that we can eventually move beyond this.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#228

Post by tt24 »

Retric wrote: post #217
tt24 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No, you ignored evidence presented while failing to provide any of your own. Evidence has no minimum standard in debate, you can only provide more compelling evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, that's not how this works. Claims must be supported by evidence. I didn't ignore it, I reviewed it and explained how it doesn't support the claim.

I have no obligation to provide evidence to the contrary. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#229

Post by throw0101d »

ceejayoz wrote: post #194
tt24 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://n…

Warnings going back to 2006:

* https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/media/24350/ocr

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#230

Post by frmersdog »

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…

Situational training is a joke (based in part on tactics developed in Israel/Occupied Palestine, i.e., for a literal military occupation), load-outs aren't designed around need but as a hand-out to our arms manufacturing industry (laundered through the military), and the cops involved in these sorts of raids are literally chosen to not be intellectually curious enough to question it.

I used to operate a firearms training system. To this day, I wish I'd stolen the videos that they use so that I can prove how ridiculously unprofessional and biased they are.

Post reply on HN