4 ms·

> "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?!?!

• jkestner 7mo ago
  The term I learned for this yesterday is “crybully”.
• junaru 7mo ago
  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 officers are “white supremacists,” that Officer Brian Newman “used to do hard drugs” before “snitching” on his friends, and that Officer Lisa Phillips is “biologically male,” according to the lawsuit.
  • ceejayoz 7mo ago
    > 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.
    • tt24 7mo ago
      > 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?
      • ceejayoz 7mo ago
        https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-i...
        • tt24 7mo ago
          Where in this article does it suggest that it’s a statistically safe assumption that most cops are white supremacists?
          • kstrauser 7mo ago
            Behold, the sea lion in its native habitat.
            • tt24 7mo ago
              [flagged]
              • Retric 7mo ago
                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.
                • tt24 7mo ago
                  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.
                  • Retric 7mo ago
                    Court cases look at things like when someone arrives in a city as evidence, that alone doesn’t make someone more likely to have done whatever than a million other people, but it’s still evidence. So you dismissed it, but it is in fact evidence that there were white supremests just as your post is evidence you are a serial killer. It’s not poof after all you could be a bot. But out off all humans who ever lived 95% of them can’t be a serial killer because they are dead, that post is evidence you where alive recently therefore it is evidence that you are vastly more likely than the average person who have ever lived to be a serial killer. Again as apposed to a dead person who at most could be a former serial killer. Thus demonstrating that evidence isn’t the same thing as strong evidence just something that increases the likelihood of something being true.
    • terminalshort 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      • ceejayoz 7mo ago
        > I claim that Afroman is a criminal. At 1:44 his own video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y) says "well, I know why narcotics" regarding the warrant. So I think he'd be OK with that statement of opinion. If that was defamation, warrants like the one in this case are defamatory, having asserted he kidnapped someone.
        • terminalshort 7mo ago
          Of course it's not defamation. But that's not what you said. You said "seems fair"
      • TheCoelacanth 7mo ago
        The bar for defamation is much higher for public officials like police than it is for private citizens. Also, while that is a very stupid and racist statement, I don't believe it is defamatory. If you falsely claimed specific crimes, then it might be.
        • terminalshort 7mo ago
          No it's not and neither is Afroman's statement. But the comment I was replying to said it was a fair statement, not merely that it is not defamatory.
    • EvgeniyZh 7mo ago
      Statistically speaking "murderer is black" is a sensible assumption in US [1], but I'd prefer it wouldn't be made [1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
      • ceejayoz 7mo ago
        The chance of a random black person being a murderer is substantially lower than the chance of a random cop being racist.
    • loeg 7mo ago
      > Statistically that's a pretty sensible assumption. Also, you know, protected opinion.
  • behringer 7mo ago
    It's not smears when it's (mostly) true or opinion.
  • TheCoelacanth 7mo ago
    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.
    • ceejayoz 7mo ago
      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.
      • snackbroken 7mo ago
        "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.
        • ceejayoz 7mo ago
          One of the songs claims he fucked one of the deputies' wives; I presume that, at least, fits it. (Unless it's true.)
  • ryukoposting 7mo ago
    It's a NY Post article. Expect some slant, and find a second opinion.
• kstrauser 7mo ago
  Civilians, in the middle of the forest: We want our privacy. This flavor of police: You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. Afroman: Here’s a video of cops inside my home. This flavor of police: Stop being mean!