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.
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.
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.