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

641–650 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#641

Post by markdown »

defrost wrote: post #304
LPisGood wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia de-armed pretty successfully.

Australia has more guns now, and more guns per capita, than it did at the time it almost unified all gun laws. It didn't "de-arm" - it brought all states and territories into near alignment on gun regulation. If you're interested I can link to good footage of my actual IRL neighbour shooting 24x24 inch targets at 5,000 yards, here in Australia. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE Alternatively you might be…

It significantly de-armed.

Most importantly, Australia removed "self-defence" as a reason to own firearms. You have to be a farmer, hunter, or belong to a shooting club.

While the number of guns increased, the number of gun owners dropped. And the new regulations enacted this year drop the number of guns one can own even more.

There was a near-total ban on "military style" guns. See how the terrorists at the massacre last year were limited by the type of guns they had access to, only managing to kill 15 despite having all the time in the world. An Ar-15 or similar weapon could have been used to slaughter that 15 in under 15 seconds.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#642

Post by snackbroken »

ceejayoz wrote: post #478
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Actual malice" is confusingly not about if the defendant was acting maliciously. It is specific legal jargon meaning that the defendant knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth made the false statements.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#643

Post by embedding-shape »

busymom0 wrote: post #553
TallGuyShort wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the police possessed the self-control and critical thinking to not drag this whole thing into a lawsuit, I think the raid would likely have never happened in the first place.

I suspect that either this was some confidential informant who just reported false claims about Afroman and the police used it to get a warrant. Or the whole department is just corrupt and make up stuff to get a warrant in order to raid his house hoping to forfeiture his money.

They also claimed that they're received hundreds of calls one day, with violent threats from some anonymous individual, and when they tried to track the number, it didn't work, "the numbers didn't actually exists" or something like that, and there is no way of proving the calls actually happened, except for the call log at their police station.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#644

Post by embedding-shape »

markdown wrote: post #634
HanClinto wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed at the number of people who are answering "this is just the way that it is in America". I don't live in Adams County, but they are our direct neighbors here in rural southwest Ohio. We like Afroman over here. :) I think the answer to your question is the warrant that they were serving involved kidnapping and an alleged torture dungeon along with drug trafficking charges. Yes, it may sound ridiculous on the…

Sounds like swatting.

"an informant apparently testified to this and a judge approved it" sounds very far away from what I understand "swatting" to mean normally.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#645

Post by embedding-shape »

esprehn wrote: post #80
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.

2022. I'm not sure phones recorded useful video in 2002.

Sony Ericsson P800 from 2002 had 640×480 videos captured from its camera :) While I wouldn't claim the quality is great, you could tell more or less what was going on.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#646

Post by snakeboy »

dogemaster2025 wrote: post #624
ceejayoz wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

I fail to understand why you cited ChatGPT in the first comment instead of just linking the sources in the first place. That was obviously the critique of your comment, and it seems bad-faith to claim it was because they "just don't like the numbers".

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#647

Post by embedding-shape »

fny wrote: post #516
quchen wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a link? There are plenty of snippets that are easy to find, is there one canonical full video?

Here's a playlist that includes them: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcopJNj12opkoEDaj5lwP...

With some strange commentary, ended up watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ozZIWy7OWk from that playlist and I'm not sure it's AI or what's going on, at one point she said Afroman called one of the police officers a "PDF" which is the first time I heard, doesn't seem Afroman actually said something like that, and I also don't understand at all what's that's supposed to mean. Doesn't seem to be a typo either?

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#649

Post by lIl-IIIl »

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?

I agree and have the same reaction, but I also wonder how long before we accept "ChatGPT" source like we do Wikipedia.

For ChatGpt answers we reasonably expect to cite actual sources rather than "Source: ChatGPT".

For Wikipedia, most of us just stop at "Source: Wikipedia".

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#650

Post by phatskat »

hliyan wrote: post #213
chneu wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If only your country operated on the Peelian principles of policing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles Relevant fictional quote: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. - William Adama

Unfortunately, the police in Adama’s world are different from our own:

> the other serves and protects the people

The only time this was actually true was at the advent of organized policing in the United States - there were two purposes for cops. In the north, they were meant to ensure the protection of property, particularly commercial.

In the south, it was the same except that usually meant slaves, so in the worst kind of technically correct sense, they did at one point protect people…kind of. Well, kept them “safe” from freedom and such.

Post reply on HN