A judge tossed two of the claims against Afroman, finding that "the issue appears to be the humiliation and outrage that the officers feel at having their likenesses displayed and mocked."
The rapper Afroman will have to continue to defend himself against a defamation lawsuit filed by Ohio sheriff's deputies who raided his house after a judge allowed some of the deputies' claims to proceed.
In a ruling last week, an Ohio county judge dismissed two of the deputies' claims against Afroman, best known for his 2000 hit "Because I Got High," finding that the rapper's commentary was protected artistic speech. However, the judge allowed three other claims to proceed, finding that it was not outside the realm of possibility that the deputies could prove they were entitled to relief.
The Adams County Sheriff's Office (ACSO) executed a search warrant on Afroman's house last August on suspicion of drug possession, drug trafficking, and kidnapping. As Reason reported in June, the deputies were searching for evidence of outlandish claims from a confidential informant that the house contained a basement dungeon.
Deputies found neither large amounts of marijuana nor a depraved dungeon. Afroman was never charged with a crime. He responded by releasing two music videos viciously mocking the deputies—"Lemon Pound Cake" and "Will You Help Me Repair My Door." He also sold merchandise with images of the deputies and used the footage to promote his products and tours.
The mockery offended the deputies so much that seven of them filed a lawsuit against Afroman in March. The deputies argued Afroman used their personas for commercial purposes without permission, causing them to suffer "embarrassment, ridicule, emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of reputation."
In an October 13 ruling on Afroman's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Adams County Judge Jerry McBride tossed out the deputies' claims of invasion of privacy by misappropriation and unauthorized commercial use, finding that, "while their quality and appropriateness may be questioned, [Afroman's] artistic and musical renderings have substantial and creative content which outweighs any adverse effect on the plaintiffs in terms of their right of publicity."
"In this case, the value that seems to be at issue here is not the monetary value of the officers' likenesses, which appears to be nominal," McBride wrote. "Instead, the issue appears to be the humiliation and outrage that the officers feel at having their likenesses displayed and mocked by the defendant. Undoubtedly, they also feel aggrieved by their investigative actions being questioned publicly."
However, McBride allowed three of the officers' other claims—false light, unreasonable publicity of private lives, and defamation—to survive, finding that many of Afroman's comments on the deputies appeared to be statements of fact rather than opinion. For example, Afroman posted on social media that deputies wanted to kill him, that one of them stole money from him, and that another deputy was a lesbian.
"My clients are pleased with the Court's ruling denying the defendants' motion to dismiss their claims," Robert Klingler, an attorney for the deputies, says. "Telling lies about people in public discourse is never justified, especially when those lies are vile, intentional, and meant only to unfairly damage people's reputations. Mr. Foreman has until now acted as if he can say anything he wants, not matter how untrue and despicable, without any repercussions. We look forward to demonstrating that neither Mr. Foreman, nor anyone else, has the right to intentionally lie about others for the purpose of causing them injury."
The Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an amicus brief in support of Afroman's motion to dismiss the suit, arguing it was a blatant example of what's known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).
"We were pleased to see that the trial court properly dismissed several of the police plaintiffs' claims," says David Carey, deputy legal director of the ACLU of Ohio. "Even at this early stage, it is obviously meritless for the officers to claim that Afroman 'misappropriated' commercial value merely by commenting on the events of a destructive search of his home—even if that commentary took the form of harsh mockery, and even if it was placed on products that he offered for sale."
Such retaliation for publicly criticizing the police is sadly common. Reason recently reported on a lawsuit filed by an Iowa man who was arrested twice for criticizing his local police department during the public comment period of a city council meeting.
Public servants that are bad at their jobs should be mocked.
I can see how there would be fact issues in these three claims.
I can't see how the police think they will prove their case to a jury.
The unreasonable publicity claim the jury will be asked whether the police had an expectation of privacy. Obviously they could not, since they were inside someone else's house and therefore could not have any idea whether there was hidden video or audio recording systems.
Truth is a defense to both defamation and false light. Is afroman's portrayal of these officers substantially true? It sure looks pretty true, given that it uses footage of the officers own actions.
Also, the context matters. Afroman isn't the New York Times. He didn't present this information as true news, allegations meant to be taken literally and seriously. While they are serious allegations, Afroman is a comedic rapper. A reasonable observer would know that some of what Afroman raps about will be exaggerated or have fictional details added in order to make a more compelling song or even just to make a bar rhyme.
These are thin skinned cops that can't handle being ridiculed by a black boy, and who want to send a message to others not to rap about cops and their embarrassing failures. That seems very obvious to me. The entire case should have been tossed under anti SLAPP laws because this is the literal definition of a SLAPP suit.
Honestly this just makes everyone want to mock them more.
Deservedly so.
Streisand Effect.
The Cops assume most folks are also White Nationalist PoS and thus that a Jury of their peers shall punish the uppity black Man.
The unreasonable publicity claim the jury will be asked whether the police had an expectation of privacy. Obviously they could not, since they were inside someone else’s house and therefore could not have any idea whether there was hidden video or audio recording systems.
Oh they knew the cameras were there, they even tried to turn them off. Then a little one of them reached inside of his vest while counting Afroman's cash, which mysteriously was a few hundred short of the gig payment it represented.
Regardless, if you're in someone else's home, you don't have an expectation of privacy against them. And as an officer on duty, you don't have an expectation of privacy against the public, either.
Also, the context matters. Afroman isn’t the New York Times. He didn’t present this information as true news, allegations meant to be taken literally and seriously. While they are serious allegations, Afroman is a comedic rapper. A reasonable observer would know that some of what Afroman raps about will be exaggerated or have fictional details added in order to make a more compelling song or even just to make a bar rhyme.
Not all of the claims are against his songs, some of the claims are about posts on Instagram or other social media. These are a little more shaky.
Personally, I don't think the cops are really that thin skinned. I think they're simply abusing the legal system to try and cause financial harm to Afroman. Unfortunately, that all too often works.
Don't forget, this all started because Afroman slept with one of the cops' ex-wife.
I suggest afroman go into business with the ex, shoot an adult film, then provide promotional materials to the cops.
Where did you get the part about Afroman sleeping with one of the police's ex-wife? I hadn't heard that part of the story before.
It wasn't anything confirmed, and looking into it he's married (although some articles mention his wife, while others talk about her as his ex-wife?) so maybe he didn't sleep with her. However I definitely saw a few things suggesting he'd interacted with a cop's ex-wife somehow, and that was supposedly what stirred things. It was probably from reddit or YouTube comments, though, so who knows if it's actually true.
In any case, the report from their CI (the official reason) was full of holes, and it's ludicrous that a judge granted a warrant over that. No wonder that another judge in the same area has allowed all of this to proceed to trial.
Edit: I found this comment that mentions him fucking a Sheriff's wife. It might be mentioned in his album.
causing them to suffer "embarrassment, ridicule, emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of reputation."
Hold up, who caused that? Seems like it wouldn't have been possible if they hadn't acted in a way that was embarrassing, ridiculous, and humiliating.
deleted by creator
Fucking pissbabies, I swear. And these cop fucks think we're gonna forget how much we laughed at them?? Those videos were funny and a lot more gentle than they had to be.
As gentle as they were, he's still paying to go to court over it.
and loss of reputation
American cops worried about their reputation. Cheeky.
deleted by creator
Maybe they are mad because failing to beat the black guy has tarnished their rep.
However, McBride allowed three of the officers’ other claims—false light, unreasonable publicity of private lives, and defamation—to survive, finding that many of Afroman’s comments on the deputies appeared to be statements of fact rather than opinion. For example, Afroman posted on social media that deputies wanted to kill him, that one of them stole money from him, and that another deputy was a lesbian.
My understanding of defamation in the US is that it isn't defamation if the defendant genuinely believes it to be true. I think it's highly likely Afroman genuinely believes they would've liked to shoot him dead, as well as that they stole his money, but maybe that lesbian claim could stick against him. However, the plaintiffs will also have to argue that being called a lesbian somehow damaged their reputation, which seems unlikely.
I can already predict the response to the lesbian claim, because outright homophobia isn't an acceptable defense anymore
"it's irreparably damaged my marriage. My kids asked me what it meant before they were old enough. I get mocked by people that know me"
When asked how her marriage was affected:
"My husband asked me if he could join in! The nerve!! He's only supposed to watch me and my bull."
It’s more than simply damaging their reputation. You need to prove that the damage caused loss in some way. For instance, maybe you lost your job because someone knowingly lied about you. In that instance, you were damaged by losing your job. But if no damage occurred, then you don’t have anything to claim in a civil trial. That’s part of what makes defamation cases so difficult to win, because simply lying about someone isn’t enough. The lies need to cause actual tangible damage.
it isn't defamation if the defendant genuinely believes it to be true
No. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, but this means that the defendant must prove to a jury that what they said is actually true, not merely that they believed it was true.
If the plaintiffs can prove that what the defendant said is false, then the defendant can defend themselves by showing that they were supported at the time by a reasonable body of objective research/investigation.
So for instance if you publish a story about "My neighbor, the murderer", you could cite the court case that found them guilty. Not just police accusations or your genuine belief that they committed murder. That's why reporters usually say "X allegedly committed a crime" before they are tried.
Note that a different standard is used when plaintiffs are celebrities, but that won't apply in this case.
You're right, I think I misremembered while trying to differentiate between jurisdictions. The standard in the UK is slightly different and it's potentially easier to prove defamation there.
That's correct as long as the belief is objectively reasonable.
Sometimes something can be stated as an opinion, but in such a way that the listener would assume the speaker knows facts to support the opinion.
If you say "in my opinion, Bob is a thief," it implies you're aware of the time when Bob stole something.
If Bob never stole anything, or if you are unaware of Bob ever stealing anything, it could be actionable defamation. In other words, it's about the innuendo of the whole statement.
Re: shooting. I think it's substantially true. They did show up to his house with guns.
Re: lesbian. The defamatory statement must be capable of being defamatory to a reasonable person. This order says the case can proceed to trial presumably because it's up to a jury to answer that question. I think a lawyer could probably convince a jury that being called a different sexual identity could be injurious to someone's reputation, but you're absolutely right that it'd be nearly impossible to prove any significant damages. Should have to prove that some adverse action was taken against her by someone who not only saw Afroman's music videos, but who took adverse action because of them.
Just butt hurt cops, who don't like others having power.
Also, the music videos in question (there were some social media posts as well, but let's be honest, the videos are more fun):
Will You Help Me Repair My Door
That officer apparently stuffing something in his vest while counting cash…
I eagerly await the super-chill Afroman rendition of "Fuck the Police" after this case is resolved.
US police remind me of the school bully who used to hurt everyone they could, only to run crying foul if anyone ever fought back.
when my mom was explaining police to me as a little black kid, this is exactly what she said. the people who apply to be police officers are just school bullies who wanted to continue their bullying as a profession.
AC AB
deleted by creator
He should counter sue because it could be a way to kill qualified immunity. The cops will almost definitely try to claim it if things go bad for them.
If I remember right, there already is a countersuit.
Apparently calling someone a lesbian is defamation now, damn…
