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

621–630 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#621

Post by maest »

eudamoniac wrote: post #449
maest wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tell them they are doing a shameful job or that you disagree with their actions or whatever. You just can't _insult_ them like a 6 year old on a playground. Why is the ability to do so valuable to you?

It is viscerally against my cultural upbringing for the government to make illegal a verbal insult, it seems like an incredible overreach. I'm genuinely culture shocked hearing this. I'd be no more shocked hearing that it's illegal to dye one's hair.

Fyi, insults are illegal in the US, under certain conditions, under the fighting words doctrine.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#622

Post by maest »

somehnguy wrote: post #504
wafflemaker wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get a gun in Norway i need 6 months in a shooting sports club. And then can only take the gun with me for shooting exercise. Strictly prohibited to have a round chambered when not standing on the shooting lane. And then only after an order from the guy running the training.

Most people, including myself, have no interest in jumping through such hoops to exercise a constitutionally protected right. We also value the ability to carry (mostly) anywhere we see fit for the purpose of defending ourselves in a worst case scenario.

Yes, the American cultural preference for guns is well established. The GP's point was that in most of the world guns are more restricted and people are doing just fine.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#623

Post by lostmsu »

john_strinlai wrote: post #375
qup wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

abduct: to seize and take away (a person) by force https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abduct sounds like what happened to me.

In most cases police or ICE does not take away people by force, but by the threat of legal authority.

OK, I am not certain about police and "most", but rather certain about ICE and "most".

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#624

Post by dogemaster2025 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #614
dogemaster2025 wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Let’s bring data: > Source: ChatGPT Please tell me this is a joke?

Why? Do you have different data or you just don’t like the numbers?

- https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts...

- https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/guns-an...

- https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2025001/article...

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#626

Post by lovich »

verteu wrote: post #603
lovich wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your friends a liar or has fallen for the propaganda if he tells you crime has gotten worse. Other than a brief blip during Covid it’s been trending steadily down for decades.

"crime was actually worse when his dad was a cop" implies crime rate is going down

You’re right, I misread the sentence as the opposite

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#628

Post by ceejayoz »

vostrocity wrote: post #559
drdeca wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see why any of those should be exonerating? Also, I feel like “nothing wrong if it does happen” regarding shooting someone, is the wrong perspective. If shooting someone is necessary, then it is necessary, but that doesn’t mean nothing went wrong. Anytime someone gets shot is a time something has gone wrong.

So if someone threatens to kill you and your family, and you shoot them, something has gone wrong? I'd say something has gone right.

There are many situations where that isn’t the right response to that.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#630

Post by Dylan16807 »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #592
Dylan16807 wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the definition of 'innocent', and that argument extremely falls apart when the word 'bystander' isn't omitted. Come on, you know what people are talking about when they say "innocent bystander".

> That's not the definition of 'innocent' No, it's the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and even if you'd like to craft a scenario next where we're going to talk about Officer Friendly stopping a rape-in-progress, yes, that person is almost certainly guilty, AND the punishment for that crime is usually not death, AND the cornerstone of our justice system says that the officer in question, no matter how pure…

> No, it's the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"

It sure is! So let's not confuse it with something else.

> A cop killing ANYONE, be they a bystander, or a suspect, or an assailant, should be RARE. It should be notable.

That's a perfectly reasonable point but let's get there without mixing up two very different statistics.

Post reply on HN