Saturday March 21 2026

Hacker Times

Afroman found not liable in defamation case

Discussion

The verdict was the icing on the cake.

Afroman did not defame Ohio cops in a satirical music video that featured footage of them fruitlessly raiding the rapper’s house, a jury found on Wednesday.

The 51-year-old “Because I Got High” rapper, whose real name is Joseph Foreman, held up his hands in triumph and hugged people in the courtroom after he was found not liable for defamation, or invasion of privacy false light publicity.

Foreman was sued by the Adams County Sheriff’s Office over a drug search at his home in August 2022 that resulted in no criminal charges.

Afroman was found not liable on Wednesday in a bizarre Ohio civil case in which cops accused him of defamation over a music video that featured footage of them fruitlessly raiding his house.

The hip hop star wrote the satirical song “Lemon Pound Cake” and made a music video with real footage of the raid taken from his home surveillance cameras to raise money for property damage caused during the search, he has said.

Seven cops with the sheriff’s office then sued him in March 2023, alleging the music video defamed them, invaded their constitutional privacy, and was an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The video features footage of the cops busting down his door during, and of one officer eyeing his “mama’s lemon poundcake” with his gun drawn.

After making the music video, Foreman allegedly continued putting up social media posts with names of the officers involved, the lawsuit states.

After making the music video, Foreman allegedly continued putting up social media posts with names of the officers involved, the lawsuit stated. YouTube / ogafroman

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.

Foreman’s lawyer had argued the song, which he described as a combination of comedy and music, was simply free speech.

“We see public officials all the time that are made fun of,” lawyer David Osborne said in a closing statement Wednesday. “They are going to be held to higher standards, their work is going to be criticized, that’s just what happens when you’re a public official.”

“It’s a social commentary on the fact that they didn’t do things correctly,” he said of the officers.

An attorney for the police, meanwhile, demanded a total of $3.9 million in damages — divided among the seven officers involved.

Foreman’s lawyer had argued the song, which he described as a combination of comedy and music, was simply free speech. YouTube / ogafroman

“[Foreman] perpetuated lies intentionally repeatedly over 3 1/2 years on the internet about these seven brave deputy sheriffs,” lawyer Robert Klingler said in closing remarks Wednesday. “[He] knew that what he posted on the internet were lies.”

“He says he’s not going to stop…tell him through your verdict that he needs to stop,” Klingler added.

“All of this is their fault,” Foreman testified in court Tuesday, according to WCPO.

“If they hadn’t wrongly raided my house, there would be no lawsuit, I would not know their names, they wouldn’t be on my home surveillance system, and there would be no songs … my money would still be intact.”

pear01•1 day ago

People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state to detain, arrest, and potentially deprive citizens of a free country of their life, liberty or property is asinine and shameful.

Cops want the power to do all this, do it incorrectly, be unable to be held accountable, and then cry like babies when someone makes videos and mocks them. He could have just sued them directly to recoup his financial losses from them destroying his house over a bs warrant but cops have qualified immunity. The justice system gives him no recourse. They sued him for videos meanwhile his countersuit was thrown out on this basis.

If you support the cops on this I see no reason why one should not conclude you "wholly endorse" the ongoing "law enforcement" assault on free Americans. What principles do you take the nation to be founded on? You realize red coats coming into people's homes under the color of the law is what instigated the war that bought this country its liberty 250 years ago? I fail to see how this is much different, armed goons with guns and badges invading private property that cannot be held accountable. No election he can take part in will reasonably solve this so he can sue in a timely manner, as the unelected justice system has unilaterally decided you cannot sue cops over this. This is anti-American. Go read the bill of rights and tell me it is consistent with the spirit of those hard fought liberties to support the cops on this. I hope if you actually endorse burdens of proof you will at least support local, state and federal representatives who will codify into law a "repeal" of qualified immunity so that cops who fail to meet that burden can be held personally accountable.

Note a case on that count would still need to prevail on the merits. That is how justice is supposed to work. Instead a carve out for law enforcement has been created where you can't even take them to court. Your case is going to get thrown out. The justice system should not be creating this special class of people, with great power and depriving them of the responsibilities common between neighbors in a free society. What they have done is really not unlike the British sending armed men into American cities to violate rights and then insisting they cannot be held accountable in colonial courts as a matter of principle. This is criminal. People should be able to sue police officers. If that makes the cost of waving guns in people's faces more expensive then so be it.

Loading replies...

parineum•1 day ago

> People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state

Let's take a step back. OP, essentially, made a very basic logical error (actually not an error IMO, but a willfully misleading statement).

They said, "Statistically, [assuming a cop is a white supremacist] a pretty sensible assumption."

In my mind, what makes something a statistically safe assumption would mean that, more times than not, you'd be right. So it'd mean that greater than half of police are white supremacists. They then posted a link to support that statement which said that some white supremacist groups are instructing their members to join the police force. He's gone from the evidence of "some" white supremacist groups are telling "some" of their members among the police force to justify saying that it's a safe assumption to assume any officer is a white supremacist (greater than 50% chance for any random cop to be a white supremacist).

Considering that I strongly doubt the quantity of white supremacists that are members of white supremacist organizations in this county is even more than half of the amount of police officers, I very much doubt that the subset of individuals in the subset of organizations who were given this instruction and actually followed through on it comprises more than half of the police officers in the country.

To which I facetious said, "I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal." Implying that, if the cops used the same logic on a neighborhood with criminals, it'd be sensible for them to assume every member of the neighborhood is a criminal. That point seemed to go over OPs head as he replied as if I wasn't making a facetious point and implied that cops do indeed do that. Presumably he thinks that's a bad thing when they do it but is perfectly reasonable for him to do.

I don't think anyone should be using faulty logic to make claims about groups of people.

> If you support the cops on this

I never said I did and, as such, the rest of this comment is not directed to me.

Loading replies...

ceejayoz•1 day ago

https://www.generalservices.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/9...

> Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2019): Qualified immunity granted for officer who, hunting a fugitive, ended up at the wrong house and forced six children, including two children under the age of three, to lie on the ground at gunpoint. The officer tried to shoot the family dog, but missed and shot a 10-year-old child that was lying face down, 18 inches away from the officer. The court held that there was no prior case where an officer accidentally shot a child laying on the ground while the officer was aiming at a dog.

> Young v. Borders, 850 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2017): Qualified immunity granted to officers who, without a warrant, started banging on an innocent man’s door without announcing themselves in the middle of the night. When the man opened the door holding his lawfully-owned handgun, officers opened fire, killing. One dissenting judge wrote that if these actions are permitted, “then the Second and Fourth Amendments are having a very bad day in this circuit.”

> Estate of Smart v. City of Wichita, 951 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2020): Qualified immunity granted for officer who heard gunshots and fired into a crowd of hundreds of people in downtown Wichita, shooting bystanders and killing an unarmed man who was trying to flee the area. The court held that the shooting was unconstitutional but there was no clearly established law that police officers could not “open fire on a fleeing person they (perhaps unreasonably) believed was armed in what they believed to be an active shooter situation.”

(And a bunch of others.)

And a matching case has to be very specific:

> Baxter v. Bracey, 751 F. App’x 869 (6th Cir. 2018): Qualified immunity granted for officers who sent a police dog to attack a man who had already surrendered and was sitting on the ground with his hands in the air. The court held that a prior case holding it unconstitutional to send a police dog after a person who surrendered by laying on the ground was not sufficiently similar to this case, involving a person who surrendered by sitting on the ground with his hands up.

"No clearly established law", my ass.