Afroman found not liable in defamation case • Hacker News Board

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#471

Post by dec0dedab0de » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:03 PM UTC

EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #301

cortesoft wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the argument how you would treat a suspect with a gun differently than you would if they have a knife. However, American cops also use guns against suspects with knives or other weapons that they also use in places like Scotland. Why couldn’t American police use these techniques when the suspect doesn’t have a gun? I know the standard response is, “well, they COULD have a gun!”, but I don’t think that is a…

Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default. But I disagree, I think brandishing a knife is already extreme behavior, I don’t think it’s logical to think “because he has a weapon he probably doesn’t have another!”. And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?

I had a rifle pointed at me about a week after I got my first car, because I accidentally drove on the wrong side of the median.

Guns are definitely pulled way more often by the police than they should be. but to your point I am okay with cops shooting anyone brandishing a knife or any other deadly weapon.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#472

Post by vasco » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:03 PM UTC

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…

A big part of being police is the cosplay of being in the army. Why do you think airsoft is so popular?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#473

Post by socalgal2 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

danlitt wrote: post #407

EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default. But I disagree, I think brandishing a knife is already extreme behavior, I don’t think it’s logical to think “because he has a weapon he probably doesn’t have another!”. And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?

> Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default. What does the default have to do with it? We are already not in the default situation. Interacting with police at all is not the default! If you mean to say something like "it's not likely" or "they're not doing it in unreasonable cases" then your anecdote is not relevant. > And why would someone threatening…

> Innocent bystanders are regularly killed by police discharging guns

False. Innocent bystanders are killed by police discharging guns, but rarely. And, while the goal should be zero, it will never be zero

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#474

Post by Rebelgecko » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

mcdonje wrote: post #94

snackbroken wrote: post #17

Going 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.

Honestly it was pretty ballsy of Afroman to release songs during the trial (which did come up, but I think they sort of ignored due to some law that changed in 2024?)

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#475

Post by stuffn » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

V-eHGsd_ wrote: post #395

GiorgioG wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US police have no obligation to protect the people.

indeed, and this is unironically cited by the "shall not be infringed" crowd as a reason that they should be allowed to bring guns anywhere and everywhere, potentially turning any movie theater disagreement or minor road annoyance (or traffic stop, to bring this back to the police) into a violent life ending incident. to quote jwz out of context, "now you have two problems".

[flagged]

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#476

Post by paxys » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #260

They tell us over and over again that we should have no expectation of privacy or not being filmed in public. Well, IMO they should not have any expectation of privacy or not being filmed when on private property.

Police, and government agents in general, should have no expectation of privacy when doing their job, period. If you have to hide your face then I don't trust you. And yes, that applies to all of ICE.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#477

Post by petsfed » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:08 PM UTC

tacitusarc wrote: post #205

ceejayoz wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The Snopes article is useful. For those who don’t want to read it, here is what Grossman says about that quotation: > That clip took my entire, full day presentation, and took it completely out of context. -They left out the part where I say that this is a normal biological, hormonal backlash from fight-or-flight (sympathetic nervous system arousal) to feed-and-breed (parasympathetic nervous system arousal) that can…

There are a million ways to express the fact of the hormonal backlash without including a quote that makes it sound like killing will improve your sex life.

In context, its correct, that's not up for dispute. The question is "does it add anything to the context?" and more importantly "could a student misconstrue its inclusion as something else?"

You'd think that, being so educated on the hormonal backlash from experiencing trauma, that cops and the greater judicial system would be more forgiving of e.g. emergent hypersexuality in rape victims after experiencing a rape that Grossman calls out there. But you would be wrong, because even if Grossman wants his students to understand that concept for their own health, he wildly misunderstands the culture he helped create where the police view themselves as a thin blue line holding back the manifold forces of Chaos Undivided.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#478

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:08 PM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #199

junaru wrote: 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…

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 ev…

Honestly, "actual malice" part probably the thing both parties here agree on existing. It's a series of diss tracks, they're inherently malicious.

You're just allowed to be maliciously right about things, if you like.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#479

Post by Rebelgecko » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:10 PM UTC

Y-bar wrote: post #128

smt88 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I see he celebrated anti-ICE protests in some videos on his YouTube channel. Where does his MAGA support you claim come from?

I think he tried to be the Libertarian presidential candidate and made a song about Hunter Biden, so people just assume he's full MAGA and doesn't deserve 1st amendment rights

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#480

Post by newobj » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 5:10 PM UTC

Reubachi wrote: post #34

"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.

Surprised they didn't write 2ÖÖ2, knowing the Times' predilections