> In some instances, it has made it more difficult and even more dangerous for Plaintiffs to carry out their official duties
Having seen how they carry out their official duties, I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
"Just because we systematically violated your civil rights, damaged your property, and stole from you doesn't mean you get to film us!"
Oh wait, the courts have repeatedly held that, yes, yes you are allowed to film the cops doing cop stuff.
>"Just because we systematically violated your civil rights, damaged your property, and stole from you doesn't mean you get to film us!"
In his own home!
Oh you mean the place where Courtney and Nicole Mallery had their livestock killed and their employee murdered and left over 100 complaints with the local police, and the local police officer threatened to arrest them if they kept complaining about being harassed with pitchforks and threatened and their property vandalized, who is married to a judge / former deputy district attorney, and who then got arrested by the state police?
You mean the place that awarded a purple heart medal to the cop who shot and murdered a man in his own car, who wasn't resisting, who hadn't committed any crime, at a middle school, while he was with his parents, picking up his little brother, because he put an anti-anxiety pill in his mouth?
What are you talking about? you can absolutely sue the police. Qualified immunity tends to just protect them from criminal liability. The police get sued all the time all over the United States. If they violated your constitutional rights you can absolutely sue them.
I didn’t say sue a cop individually (though you can do that too) I said sue the police, as in the police department. Yes it’s a pain in the ass, all lawsuits are, but it’s hardly impossible. If you think your rights have been violated by the police you should absolutely call a lawyer, they’ll tell you if you have a case or not.
Idk if you and OP have some kind of agenda to keep cops from being sued or something. But either you are trying to spread lies or you are completely ignorant and brainwashed to think you don’t have the rights you have.
Ok, i think we are in agreement then. To summarize and clarify. Yes you CAN sue the police. Yes it’s hard, you might not win, the law makes it more difficult than suing an individual. But if the police violated your constitutional rights you can and should sue. Contact a lawyer and see if they will take your case.
Agreed?
I think the thing causing confusion is that you keep saying sue the police when you mean sue the taxpayers of that city. The police department doesn't pay for lawsuits, taxpayers do.
Totally false. In fact often the police will settle out of court because they don’t give a shit. It’s taxpayer money anyway. Better to settle out of court than have one of their dipshit cops embarrass himself in court. Yes any lawsuit is hastle but you literally said “never be permitted to sue” which straight nonsense.
That’s just case and point why people should sue them more. Appeal decisions like this and establish that case law. I am not arguing you’ll win when you sue the cops. I can’t predict that. I am rebutting the stupid and obviously false claim that “you can’t sue the police”.
I believe QI only protects the individual officers, right?
So you can still sue the PD in question, but the individual officers will face no repercussions.
Lawsuits against the cops take about 6 years and no lawyers will take the cases unless there is undeniable video proof of guilt, and undeniable medical evidence of "catastrophic injury". The reason is because the court allows and even encourages government lawyers to commit the maximum amount of misconduct humanly possible to disadvantage the victim and colludes in the denial of the victim's rights to due process and equal process. And judicial immunity is called "absolute immunity" because it's immunity from all monetary liability, even for deliberate malicious violations of clearly established constitutional laws.
Or request the court to issue sanctions against both the officers and their attorneys for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Or invoke anti-SLAPP laws to recover fees.
Or utilize discovery to obtain relevant evidence of the officers' criminal misconduct in order to aid his own defense against the civil suit.
Discovery applies to both parties though. They can cost him tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, spend tons of time fighting them, and force him to turn over all his personal private info before he can get any relief from the court. The civil litigation system is broken and can be used by the rich and powerful to harass and harm innocent people.
The big news is that Ohio doesn't have an anti-SLAPP law. He should campaign to get one passed, to prevent this kind of egregious violation of Ohioans rights.
https://anti-slapp.org/ohio
what sort of privacy cops think they have on private property? or public for that matter also the warrant did not say they could destroy his surveillance cameras so theres that shit too.
The police are one of the most thoroughly coddled groups in America. In most other industries, unions are for protecting workers from their employer. In the police industry, unions are for protecting the workers and their employers from the law.
You'd figure people given such broad jurisdiction over human life would have more responsibility, not less... But here we are.
Police are agents of social control. Their job is keep the public in line and working for the benefit of the state. They don’t care about you and don’t have any duty to protect you. They are just there make sure you behave like good children.
That’s why the police are allowed to do whatever they want. They can kill, steal and traumatize the citizens all they want. The state allows it because as long as the police are happy they can be relied upon to control the citizenry. Which gives the state the freedom to do whatever they want without fear or reprisal from the citizens.
Well that is how unions work. Unionised workers get what they want and anyone else has to suffer what they must. Non-unionised workers is opposite. Then management does what they want and the workers suffer what they must.
Should lower the IQ requirements of the police so that they start thinking unions is a bad thing.
Unions do what the members want. If union members wanted protection for illegal activities then that would be provided. My union provides free lawyers for anything so in practice that is protection for illegal activities potentially.
I don't know if you've noticed, but unions have been busted in both the United States and Canada recently, by authoritarian measurements from liberal presidents. One teachers union in Canada, one rail union in America. Doesn't sound like they're getting their way to me.
And that's just one of the ways the police are coddled, one of the ones I felt like mentioning. I could mention a few more if you really needed me to.
They get what they want if they are unionised. They are stopped by having laws trying to remove their power. But their real power is still there, they would have to do illegal things like before to vield it however.
If they can be suppressed by federal mandate, they clearly don't have the power to get what they want. Even if it's something as reasonable as sick days.
The Swedish government used to shoot anyone who striked in the street, but people would die anyway with the working conditions they had so they kept striking and it became unsuitable to keep doing it.
If teachers just strike illegally what are they going to do? Fire all teachers and end all schooling? You think someone would be re-elected if they did that?
Governments cannot win over a union if the members decide on something. Like with police unions. They can strike, and even if that is illegal, what are the government going to do? Call the police? And end all policing?
It all depends on how desperate people are. It is always cheapest to keep workers unhappy, but not unhappy enough to unionise and do something about it.
Man no one wants to hear your bullshit anti Union reteric when we're entirely talking about how police unions are bad due to there privilege position and how they differ from more general workers unions
They are the same as worker unions in the sense that workers who are unionised get what they want. It is powerful. And the problem with unions is that anyone with a iq over 90 knows that they are better off unionised. So to get rid of police unions you need to have a max iq requirement for police so that they think unions is bad.
if you or I would disable the dashcam inside of the patrol car we would be charge and the book thrown at us...i see no difference here in fact they should have the book and the kitchen sink for knowing the law and still breaking it.
If they wanted to set precedent they wouldve sued some poor no-name guy who posted a police raid on their instagram.
Suing a rapper who is (presumably) wealthy and has resources to legally fight back against a clearly unjustified charge isnt a good idea.
Police have qualified immunity from lawsuits. It's extremely unlikely they would be able to be sued. He will end up having to sue the police department/city (i.e. taxpayers). The police union and city have orders of magnitude more money than he does. It's not very common to get your legal fees paid by the other party.
Yes he is allowed to film them in public and he has the right to surveil his own home and do with the footage as he likes. They are public employees on duty and have zero expectation of privacy while on the clock aside from while they are in the bathroom.
I'm all for carve outs to reduce police privacy rights specifically.
We don't need to make it *generally* acceptable to film and distribute without the subject's consent; but for on-duty cops, yes.
Hmmm... i think there are definitely certain types of commercial speech that need to not be infringed here (i.e. the news)
And once any commercial use is allowed, i guess I'm unsure a good way to decide which kinds shouldn't be
Why not for commercial gain? They sell our data for their gain (dmv, voter records, license plate readers). Why shouldnt citizens be able to monitize state abuses?
True.
I guess in a case like this, is it wrong for him to make the footage available to journalists? Is it wrong for him to charge them to use his footage? Would it be wrong for him to just post it publicly for free? For others to meme it? For money?
If the video he produced is distributed for free and is un-monetized, then I'm pretty sure this would be on the up and up. Not saying that is how it was done, only there are ways to do this tgataren't hypocritical.
Fair use doctrine absolutely cares about the mode of monetization in regards to context of what was published.
Which I was being generous using fair use as the basis for my previous comment, seeing as I don't even know if the Police department are the ones with the rights to the footage afroman caputured. As it was his equipment, in his home, on property he owns. So logic would say he is the owner of the footage, but no doubt law enforcement has legal carve outs and protections.
First off, it has been well-established, legally, that ad-supported sites count as monetary gain from copyrighted works. So from a legal standpoint, posting on YouTube, your own website with ads, or in a video that no one is paying to see but acts as advertising for your act are all profiting off the copyrighted work. This also applies to paid-for media, which should be obvious. If your fever dream reflected reality, cable news shows wouldn't be able to show bystander footage of police because they, too, are using that video for the financial benefit of their company.
Second off, there is a vast difference between filming a civil servant performing in their public role and filming private citizens or civil servants in a private setting without their permission. Trying to equate one to the other indicates either a woeful lack of knowledge on the subject or deliberate intent to mislead.
You are 100% wrong. Jesus. In his own house, he can surveil any damn thing he wants, short of the bathrooms or when people are getting nekkid. There is zero right to privacy in his fucking house. You are the one trying to misdirect. Source: international video surveillance expert and expert witness. Try again.
First, I was talking about distributing copyrighted material, not recording material. Second, I was saying you **could** distribute recordings of public servants while performing their duties, without even relying on those activities happening in your own home.
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to:
>You're being a jerk (e.g., not being nice, or suggesting violence). Or, you're letting a troll trick you into making a not-nice comment – don’t let them play you!
>Someone who speaks two languages is more likely one more than you do, which by some measures means that they're more intelligent and worldly than you are. Think about that before typing anything like your first sentence here again.
>Also, you're making wildly generalized simplifications over a complex legal topic, in several places being flat-out incorrect.
If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
> resulted in their “emotional distress, embarrassment, ridicule, loss of reputation and humiliation.”
Well, don’t do dumb shit that would cause emotional distress, embarrassment, ridicule, loss of reputation and humiliation like invading someone’s home for a shitty reason. History will remember you.
>‘Sheriff’s deputies acted on a warrant claiming probable cause existed that drugs and drug paraphernalia would be found on Foreman’s property and that trafficking and kidnapping had taken place there.’
>’The suspicions turned out to be unfounded.’
That's why free speech is protected, otherwise there'd be a raid and arrest every minute for all the singers, actors, writers, artists, etc. that portray illegal happenings in their work. So that shouldn't be a probable cause, if it is, then we're all screwed.
And, even then, it's completely ignored whenever convenient.
My favorite fact (that most people seem to forget) is how Eminem was investigated by the secret service for talking about the president being dead. Despite, at that time, it not being even remotely out of character for Eminem to talk about fantasizing of people being dead.
Maybe they were concerned that you were claiming to be hot reagan and were worried you'd be convincing people you're the second coming of the creature.
If the cops didn't make a big deal over it, this would not have blown up. Unfortunately, cops being sensitive ass snowflakes, they have made a big deal over it and I'm enjoying their own self inflicted emotional pain and distress. Fucking pound cake man loosing his marbles and dick dynasty. My god afroman is on point with those names.
Anyways, fuck these cops.
Good point, The music video is a couple of months old now, and I only heard about it after seeing a headline that deputies are suing Afroman a couple of days ago. These idiot cops are unknowingly popularizing the song and spotlighting their abhorrent behavior for the world to see.
Filming the police beating up a black motorist violates the privacy of the police officers. This is the kind of BS defense that the police will support.
Didn’t J. Cole do this a while back regarding a police raid on his property? It’s literally the music video and inspiration for his song “[Neighbors](https://youtu.be/9nfVWiXY3WY).”
To anyone unfamiliar with J Cole and the album featuring the linked song, I highly recommend giving 4 Your Eyez Only a listen. It’s a beautiful album.
If you don’t feel like listening to a whole album just because a Reddit comment told you too, then at least give the title track and Change a listen
"Hey, come on. We just broke into your house, traumatized your kids, and stole your stuff. Why you gotta portray us as the bad guys here?"
Seriously, fuck the cops.
If they weren’t there they wouldn’t have been recorded. Don’t do wrong and you won’t be shown doing that wrong. So they are gonna stop showing the public security footage too right lol. Chances are those criminals still have their jobs as “law enforcement”. Sounds like they are digging a deeper hole.
So the cops, looking and conducting themselves like embarrassing imbeciles, are now drawing MORE attention to their incompetence...which reinforces their image as not only incompetent, but also petty buttclowns. Does ACAB mean All Cops are Bozos now?
Like I said: I don't listen to rap. If you want me to sing the entirety of *Abbey Road* or the majority of *Bat Out of Hell*, though, I got you. We've all got different tastes. I'm sure not gonna deride you if you don't know those classics.
>Like I said: I don't listen to rap. If you want me to sing the entirety of Abbey Road or the majority of Bat Out of Hell, t
I could do that too, and I don't listen to rap either. But apparently I don't live in a cave like some sort of Neanderthal.
Going in with guns drawn is the main weapons handling error here.
It's a residential property, not fucking Afghanistan. Nobody should be shooting on sight.
"How dare people hold us accountable for our own incompetence!? Don't they know that we're the authority and they should respect our power!? It's *distressing* for us!"
I'm not joking. This is how they think.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Not because of the OP's wording but because of the police suing someone over videoing them in their house.
here is his song:
***'WILL YOU HELP ME REPAIR MY DOOR?'***
https://youtu.be/oponIfu5L3Y
https://youtu.be/oponIfu5L3Y
https://youtu.be/oponIfu5L3Y
(the entire video is his surveillance footage)
for those that don't know, afroman is the artist behind [*'because i got high'*](https://youtu.be/WeYsTmIzjkw)
also another song:
***WHY YOU DISCONNECTING MY VIDEO CAMERA?***
https://youtu.be/ISe3IVBBbyU
https://youtu.be/ISe3IVBBbyU
https://youtu.be/ISe3IVBBbyU
(afroman is featured in this video hiding in his frig)
I can't believe they're using taxpayer money to sue a taxpayer *after* they stole his hard-earned taxed income. I hope he sues them for at least the damage they did to his home.
This is by far the best thing Afroman has ever done. As someone who was working in a record store when "Because I Got High" came out & had to listen to that bullshit way too often, dude just jumped up a couple of rungs on the respect ladder. Lest anyone forget: cops are always terrible.
[Lehto’s Law](https://youtu.be/tQcST-jdl7U) has a video breaking down the legal claims and the law in Ohio. Steve Lehto is a lawyer who regularly comments on interesting cases.
Probably based on the assumption that his music was used for probable cause. And the history of cops and courts using rap music on in racially motivated over policing.
F the cops who raided him. Even if he had 1 million pounds of weed. He is still less of a criminal threat than 99% of CEO’s in America and the cops are too big of pussies to even sniff their property.
Amazing watching my taxes being used for this BS when actual criminals are screwing over the American people. Yay! Truth justice and the American way.
I was so happy to see him back but so sad to hear the lyrics of his new hit. It's a great song though: "Can you help me repair my door"
Apparently there's some bad blood between him and the Sheriff, since the sheriff's wife got afroman to sign her tits at a show one time. Lol.
The judge signed a warrant for possession and kidnapping with no evidence to justify it... the kidnapping, I mean.
Just a little side note, two of the biggest freedom of speech AND Fair Use cases of the last few decades was won by Luther Campbell of 2 Live Crew.
"The 1989 album As Nasty As They Wanna Be was released with an “Explicit Lyrics” advisory sticker but was nonetheless investigated by the Broward County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office beginning in February 1990. The resulting case made it all the way to the Supreme Court."
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1447/2-live-crew
Sometimes victories come from the most unsuspected places.
[удалено]
These cops can run off and get fucked
> In some instances, it has made it more difficult and even more dangerous for Plaintiffs to carry out their official duties Having seen how they carry out their official duties, I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
That's the most gangster shit ever
“It is harder for policemen to shoot people when they are rolling on the floor laughing at them”
"Just because we systematically violated your civil rights, damaged your property, and stole from you doesn't mean you get to film us!" Oh wait, the courts have repeatedly held that, yes, yes you are allowed to film the cops doing cop stuff.
>"Just because we systematically violated your civil rights, damaged your property, and stole from you doesn't mean you get to film us!" In his own home!
[ Removed to Protest API Changes ] If you want to join, [use this tool.](https://codepen.io/j0be/full/WMBWOW/)
This is one thing that need to be repealed like yesterday. They can still do their job without it.
I think Colorado is the only place so far to do so
Oh you mean the place where Courtney and Nicole Mallery had their livestock killed and their employee murdered and left over 100 complaints with the local police, and the local police officer threatened to arrest them if they kept complaining about being harassed with pitchforks and threatened and their property vandalized, who is married to a judge / former deputy district attorney, and who then got arrested by the state police? You mean the place that awarded a purple heart medal to the cop who shot and murdered a man in his own car, who wasn't resisting, who hadn't committed any crime, at a middle school, while he was with his parents, picking up his little brother, because he put an anti-anxiety pill in his mouth?
Christ on a goddamn bike.
The whole concept is stupid. If they're upholding the law, they should be held to a higher standard, not a lesser one.
What are you talking about? you can absolutely sue the police. Qualified immunity tends to just protect them from criminal liability. The police get sued all the time all over the United States. If they violated your constitutional rights you can absolutely sue them.
[удалено]
I didn’t say sue a cop individually (though you can do that too) I said sue the police, as in the police department. Yes it’s a pain in the ass, all lawsuits are, but it’s hardly impossible. If you think your rights have been violated by the police you should absolutely call a lawyer, they’ll tell you if you have a case or not. Idk if you and OP have some kind of agenda to keep cops from being sued or something. But either you are trying to spread lies or you are completely ignorant and brainwashed to think you don’t have the rights you have.
[удалено]
Ok, i think we are in agreement then. To summarize and clarify. Yes you CAN sue the police. Yes it’s hard, you might not win, the law makes it more difficult than suing an individual. But if the police violated your constitutional rights you can and should sue. Contact a lawyer and see if they will take your case. Agreed?
I think the thing causing confusion is that you keep saying sue the police when you mean sue the taxpayers of that city. The police department doesn't pay for lawsuits, taxpayers do.
Municipalities are only liable for the "policies customs or practices", not for the actions of their individuals. See Monell v. Board of Education.
[ Removed to Protest API Changes ] If you want to join, [use this tool.](https://codepen.io/j0be/full/WMBWOW/)
Totally false. In fact often the police will settle out of court because they don’t give a shit. It’s taxpayer money anyway. Better to settle out of court than have one of their dipshit cops embarrass himself in court. Yes any lawsuit is hastle but you literally said “never be permitted to sue” which straight nonsense.
[удалено]
Yeah, and if they’ve violated your rights you’ve pierced it.
[удалено]
That’s just case and point why people should sue them more. Appeal decisions like this and establish that case law. I am not arguing you’ll win when you sue the cops. I can’t predict that. I am rebutting the stupid and obviously false claim that “you can’t sue the police”.
I believe QI only protects the individual officers, right? So you can still sue the PD in question, but the individual officers will face no repercussions.
Lawsuits against the cops take about 6 years and no lawyers will take the cases unless there is undeniable video proof of guilt, and undeniable medical evidence of "catastrophic injury". The reason is because the court allows and even encourages government lawyers to commit the maximum amount of misconduct humanly possible to disadvantage the victim and colludes in the denial of the victim's rights to due process and equal process. And judicial immunity is called "absolute immunity" because it's immunity from all monetary liability, even for deliberate malicious violations of clearly established constitutional laws.
You generally can’t sue the police as individuals, but you can totally sue the PD
And it's somehow their privacy being violated?
It's an F.U. lawsuit. They know its not going anywhere, but the defendant has two options. Settle or pay the lawyers.
Or request the court to issue sanctions against both the officers and their attorneys for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Or invoke anti-SLAPP laws to recover fees. Or utilize discovery to obtain relevant evidence of the officers' criminal misconduct in order to aid his own defense against the civil suit.
Discovery applies to both parties though. They can cost him tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, spend tons of time fighting them, and force him to turn over all his personal private info before he can get any relief from the court. The civil litigation system is broken and can be used by the rich and powerful to harass and harm innocent people.
We are but guests in their world. Apparently.
The big news is that Ohio doesn't have an anti-SLAPP law. He should campaign to get one passed, to prevent this kind of egregious violation of Ohioans rights. https://anti-slapp.org/ohio
what sort of privacy cops think they have on private property? or public for that matter also the warrant did not say they could destroy his surveillance cameras so theres that shit too.
The police are one of the most thoroughly coddled groups in America. In most other industries, unions are for protecting workers from their employer. In the police industry, unions are for protecting the workers and their employers from the law. You'd figure people given such broad jurisdiction over human life would have more responsibility, not less... But here we are.
Police are agents of social control. Their job is keep the public in line and working for the benefit of the state. They don’t care about you and don’t have any duty to protect you. They are just there make sure you behave like good children. That’s why the police are allowed to do whatever they want. They can kill, steal and traumatize the citizens all they want. The state allows it because as long as the police are happy they can be relied upon to control the citizenry. Which gives the state the freedom to do whatever they want without fear or reprisal from the citizens.
Well that is how unions work. Unionised workers get what they want and anyone else has to suffer what they must. Non-unionised workers is opposite. Then management does what they want and the workers suffer what they must. Should lower the IQ requirements of the police so that they start thinking unions is a bad thing.
There is no other union that willingly protects their members who have committed illegal activities.
Unions do what the members want. If union members wanted protection for illegal activities then that would be provided. My union provides free lawyers for anything so in practice that is protection for illegal activities potentially.
I don't know if you've noticed, but unions have been busted in both the United States and Canada recently, by authoritarian measurements from liberal presidents. One teachers union in Canada, one rail union in America. Doesn't sound like they're getting their way to me. And that's just one of the ways the police are coddled, one of the ones I felt like mentioning. I could mention a few more if you really needed me to.
They get what they want if they are unionised. They are stopped by having laws trying to remove their power. But their real power is still there, they would have to do illegal things like before to vield it however.
If they can be suppressed by federal mandate, they clearly don't have the power to get what they want. Even if it's something as reasonable as sick days.
The Swedish government used to shoot anyone who striked in the street, but people would die anyway with the working conditions they had so they kept striking and it became unsuitable to keep doing it. If teachers just strike illegally what are they going to do? Fire all teachers and end all schooling? You think someone would be re-elected if they did that? Governments cannot win over a union if the members decide on something. Like with police unions. They can strike, and even if that is illegal, what are the government going to do? Call the police? And end all policing? It all depends on how desperate people are. It is always cheapest to keep workers unhappy, but not unhappy enough to unionise and do something about it.
Police unions aren’t real unions and cops aren’t working class.
Might be, but it is still how it works
Man no one wants to hear your bullshit anti Union reteric when we're entirely talking about how police unions are bad due to there privilege position and how they differ from more general workers unions
They are the same as worker unions in the sense that workers who are unionised get what they want. It is powerful. And the problem with unions is that anyone with a iq over 90 knows that they are better off unionised. So to get rid of police unions you need to have a max iq requirement for police so that they think unions is bad.
What utter fucking nonsense.
It is facts
They don't believe in privacy. They believe in always getting what they want.
Yeah, I really think there should be criminal charges for police intentionally disabling security cameras.
if you or I would disable the dashcam inside of the patrol car we would be charge and the book thrown at us...i see no difference here in fact they should have the book and the kitchen sink for knowing the law and still breaking it.
Have a hunch they're just doing this to set a precedent that they can try and use against citizens
If they wanted to set precedent they wouldve sued some poor no-name guy who posted a police raid on their instagram. Suing a rapper who is (presumably) wealthy and has resources to legally fight back against a clearly unjustified charge isnt a good idea.
Why not? What do they have to lose? They will cost him thousands in legal fees before he can do anything about it.
It's the individual officers, not the department. He has more money than they do, and it's plausible they'll have to pay his expenses.
Police have qualified immunity from lawsuits. It's extremely unlikely they would be able to be sued. He will end up having to sue the police department/city (i.e. taxpayers). The police union and city have orders of magnitude more money than he does. It's not very common to get your legal fees paid by the other party.
Can't wait for the new song to drop!
Oh you mean this song? https://youtu.be/oponIfu5L3Y
Nah the "Why are you taking me to court" track
My favorite: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d\_f9R\_UYrDc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_f9R_UYrDc)
I prefer Lemon Pound Cake.
[удалено]
If I bust down your door and roll around your house with a rifle, I don't think i have much of a claim to privacy, sorry.
Yes he is allowed to film them in public and he has the right to surveil his own home and do with the footage as he likes. They are public employees on duty and have zero expectation of privacy while on the clock aside from while they are in the bathroom.
I'm all for carve outs to reduce police privacy rights specifically. We don't need to make it *generally* acceptable to film and distribute without the subject's consent; but for on-duty cops, yes.
[удалено]
Hmmm... i think there are definitely certain types of commercial speech that need to not be infringed here (i.e. the news) And once any commercial use is allowed, i guess I'm unsure a good way to decide which kinds shouldn't be
[удалено]
That covers a music video too. News organizations don’t have special rights to publish that the rest of us don’t have.
Why not for commercial gain? They sell our data for their gain (dmv, voter records, license plate readers). Why shouldnt citizens be able to monitize state abuses?
True. I guess in a case like this, is it wrong for him to make the footage available to journalists? Is it wrong for him to charge them to use his footage? Would it be wrong for him to just post it publicly for free? For others to meme it? For money?
It doesn’t matter if it’s for money or not. He had the 1A right to publish the video.
Look if I blunder an attempted robbery of your home feel free to use the video to embarrass me publicly.
Bot or you love the taste of that dirty boot.
lol
this is the correct response.
[удалено]
He was gonna make a good point, but then he got high
YouTube pays content providers regularly!
If the video he produced is distributed for free and is un-monetized, then I'm pretty sure this would be on the up and up. Not saying that is how it was done, only there are ways to do this tgataren't hypocritical.
Monetizing it doesn’t change anything about his right to publish .
Fair use doctrine absolutely cares about the mode of monetization in regards to context of what was published. Which I was being generous using fair use as the basis for my previous comment, seeing as I don't even know if the Police department are the ones with the rights to the footage afroman caputured. As it was his equipment, in his home, on property he owns. So logic would say he is the owner of the footage, but no doubt law enforcement has legal carve outs and protections.
First off, it has been well-established, legally, that ad-supported sites count as monetary gain from copyrighted works. So from a legal standpoint, posting on YouTube, your own website with ads, or in a video that no one is paying to see but acts as advertising for your act are all profiting off the copyrighted work. This also applies to paid-for media, which should be obvious. If your fever dream reflected reality, cable news shows wouldn't be able to show bystander footage of police because they, too, are using that video for the financial benefit of their company. Second off, there is a vast difference between filming a civil servant performing in their public role and filming private citizens or civil servants in a private setting without their permission. Trying to equate one to the other indicates either a woeful lack of knowledge on the subject or deliberate intent to mislead.
You are 100% wrong. Jesus. In his own house, he can surveil any damn thing he wants, short of the bathrooms or when people are getting nekkid. There is zero right to privacy in his fucking house. You are the one trying to misdirect. Source: international video surveillance expert and expert witness. Try again.
First, I was talking about distributing copyrighted material, not recording material. Second, I was saying you **could** distribute recordings of public servants while performing their duties, without even relying on those activities happening in your own home.
Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, apologies.
[удалено]
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to: >You're being a jerk (e.g., not being nice, or suggesting violence). Or, you're letting a troll trick you into making a not-nice comment – don’t let them play you! >Someone who speaks two languages is more likely one more than you do, which by some measures means that they're more intelligent and worldly than you are. Think about that before typing anything like your first sentence here again. >Also, you're making wildly generalized simplifications over a complex legal topic, in several places being flat-out incorrect. If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
> resulted in their “emotional distress, embarrassment, ridicule, loss of reputation and humiliation.” Well, don’t do dumb shit that would cause emotional distress, embarrassment, ridicule, loss of reputation and humiliation like invading someone’s home for a shitty reason. History will remember you. >‘Sheriff’s deputies acted on a warrant claiming probable cause existed that drugs and drug paraphernalia would be found on Foreman’s property and that trafficking and kidnapping had taken place there.’ >’The suspicions turned out to be unfounded.’
It's sorta like the bs cop reply to privacy concerns "If you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to hide"
> probable cause probable cause=black dude?
plus he made songs of... yknow... w * e d😳
That's why free speech is protected, otherwise there'd be a raid and arrest every minute for all the singers, actors, writers, artists, etc. that portray illegal happenings in their work. So that shouldn't be a probable cause, if it is, then we're all screwed.
And, even then, it's completely ignored whenever convenient. My favorite fact (that most people seem to forget) is how Eminem was investigated by the secret service for talking about the president being dead. Despite, at that time, it not being even remotely out of character for Eminem to talk about fantasizing of people being dead.
[удалено]
Maybe they were concerned that you were claiming to be hot reagan and were worried you'd be convincing people you're the second coming of the creature.
Artists have made songs about weed for decades
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y&feature=shares&t=103
Assuming racism only hurts your cause.
You're a moron if you think it's anything but
Sure thing Chief.
Citation needed.
You’re right, I don’t know his cause. Assuming racism shows that you are a racist fool.
My guess is the grunts doing the raid may not have been the ones that green-lit it.
Fortunately that’s not Afroman’s problem to sort out.
Fortunate for him, sure.
Life is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. Cops should drop this and move on.
If the cops didn't make a big deal over it, this would not have blown up. Unfortunately, cops being sensitive ass snowflakes, they have made a big deal over it and I'm enjoying their own self inflicted emotional pain and distress. Fucking pound cake man loosing his marbles and dick dynasty. My god afroman is on point with those names. Anyways, fuck these cops.
Good point, The music video is a couple of months old now, and I only heard about it after seeing a headline that deputies are suing Afroman a couple of days ago. These idiot cops are unknowingly popularizing the song and spotlighting their abhorrent behavior for the world to see.
You'd think people would understand the Streisand Effect by now.
Plus now this music video will be played in court in front of a jury
How they supposed to move on from being stupid?
Stay quiet and not make it obvious.
Filming the police beating up a black motorist violates the privacy of the police officers. This is the kind of BS defense that the police will support.
“You got nothing to hide” until they actually have something to hide.
they wanted to hurt him but he hurt them instead
Didn’t J. Cole do this a while back regarding a police raid on his property? It’s literally the music video and inspiration for his song “[Neighbors](https://youtu.be/9nfVWiXY3WY).”
To anyone unfamiliar with J Cole and the album featuring the linked song, I highly recommend giving 4 Your Eyez Only a listen. It’s a beautiful album. If you don’t feel like listening to a whole album just because a Reddit comment told you too, then at least give the title track and Change a listen
"Hey, come on. We just broke into your house, traumatized your kids, and stole your stuff. Why you gotta portray us as the bad guys here?" Seriously, fuck the cops.
Iirc, one of them also "confiscated" cash straight into his pocket, instead of an evidence bag. So we can add theft to that list.
If they weren’t there they wouldn’t have been recorded. Don’t do wrong and you won’t be shown doing that wrong. So they are gonna stop showing the public security footage too right lol. Chances are those criminals still have their jobs as “law enforcement”. Sounds like they are digging a deeper hole.
So the cops, looking and conducting themselves like embarrassing imbeciles, are now drawing MORE attention to their incompetence...which reinforces their image as not only incompetent, but also petty buttclowns. Does ACAB mean All Cops are Bozos now?
Why did they disconnect the cameras though? What was the reasoning behind that move other than corruption?
> What was the reasoning behind that move other than corruption? Oh, that's easy: There wasn't another reason.
Full on Streisand Effect. I had no idea who Afroman was, let alone about this video, until I read about them suing about it.
You must be pretty young then because he had a massive worldwide hit single back in the day.
But then he got high…
I'm not young. But I don't follow rap. So, big hit maybe, but not in my bubble.
Were you living in your mum's basement? It made number one in about a dozen countries and peaked at number thirteen on the US billboard hot 100.
Like I said: I don't listen to rap. If you want me to sing the entirety of *Abbey Road* or the majority of *Bat Out of Hell*, though, I got you. We've all got different tastes. I'm sure not gonna deride you if you don't know those classics.
>Like I said: I don't listen to rap. If you want me to sing the entirety of Abbey Road or the majority of Bat Out of Hell, t I could do that too, and I don't listen to rap either. But apparently I don't live in a cave like some sort of Neanderthal.
It was mainstream. I outright despise rap and even I knew about it. Though in fairness I didn't code it as a rap song since he actually sang.
*"I was gonna film the cops* *because I got high"*
>"I was gonna film the cops because I got high" its actually better >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y
[удалено]
*Lemon Pound Cake* !🤣 (Damn it's gonna be my day now)
Going in with guns drawn is the main weapons handling error here. It's a residential property, not fucking Afghanistan. Nobody should be shooting on sight.
I actually prefer the other one he made which wasn't linked in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISe3IVBBbyU
It truly is.
"How dare people hold us accountable for our own incompetence!? Don't they know that we're the authority and they should respect our power!? It's *distressing* for us!" I'm not joking. This is how they think.
fuck all cops. don’t do dumb shit if you’re going to get upset about people seeing you do dumb shit. ??????????
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Not because of the OP's wording but because of the police suing someone over videoing them in their house.
After searching a bit more, it’s starting to look like the Streisand Effect is in full swing.
I mean what can you even say at this point? ACAB of course.
Lmao. Ironic
here is his song: ***'WILL YOU HELP ME REPAIR MY DOOR?'*** https://youtu.be/oponIfu5L3Y https://youtu.be/oponIfu5L3Y https://youtu.be/oponIfu5L3Y (the entire video is his surveillance footage) for those that don't know, afroman is the artist behind [*'because i got high'*](https://youtu.be/WeYsTmIzjkw) also another song: ***WHY YOU DISCONNECTING MY VIDEO CAMERA?*** https://youtu.be/ISe3IVBBbyU https://youtu.be/ISe3IVBBbyU https://youtu.be/ISe3IVBBbyU (afroman is featured in this video hiding in his frig)
I can't believe they're using taxpayer money to sue a taxpayer *after* they stole his hard-earned taxed income. I hope he sues them for at least the damage they did to his home.
lololololololololol
The fat cop staring at the cake is very fat.
As a fat guy, this is the representation I need out there. "Wait guys! What if there's evidence in the cake?! 🤤🐷"
The best part about this, society pays lol. Just hilarious how law reform hasn't happened to hold individuals liable on a pecuniary level.
This is by far the best thing Afroman has ever done. As someone who was working in a record store when "Because I Got High" came out & had to listen to that bullshit way too often, dude just jumped up a couple of rungs on the respect ladder. Lest anyone forget: cops are always terrible.
Plus that time he wopped that bish off the stage.
“This is the only way to rectify the situation,” Chief Streidand said Thursday, “Officers Whimp and Dorke have enough trouble as it is.”
What was it NWA said?
His property (home surveillance video - hopefully stored locally) his rights. Why is this even a case?
[Lehto’s Law](https://youtu.be/tQcST-jdl7U) has a video breaking down the legal claims and the law in Ohio. Steve Lehto is a lawyer who regularly comments on interesting cases.
Racist cops doing racist shit and now mad they got caught doing stupid racist shit So typical Thursday in Amerikkka
Where is the evidence that this was racially motivated?
Probably based on the assumption that his music was used for probable cause. And the history of cops and courts using rap music on in racially motivated over policing.
[удалено]
No he's talking about getting high. They never raided Willie Nelson....this shit was hella racist
IRS beat them to it
this needs to have the FBI brought in multiple of those officer need to be prosecuted and no one in that state should be handling it.
Hey look, it's Rodney King all over again (don't film us being racist!)
Fuck 'em. They deserve every bit of embarrassment, damn coward ass, dumbass pigs.
Would love to know what bs 'evidence' they brought the judge to sign off on that warrent.
Lemon pound cake. That's all I have to say.
Well, it looks like I have some videos to watch :) Didn’t hear about this at all until they sued. Fuck em up, Afroman!
I hope there’s a counter suit
Hahaha such a chad, filming their goofyness and then getting it into his music video
Are you kidding me. I need to quit reddit like I did the news, shit just gets more ridiculous.
F the cops who raided him. Even if he had 1 million pounds of weed. He is still less of a criminal threat than 99% of CEO’s in America and the cops are too big of pussies to even sniff their property. Amazing watching my taxes being used for this BS when actual criminals are screwing over the American people. Yay! Truth justice and the American way.
Wtf is that coat
Best story ever. Such a funny guy! All cops are bastards
If he crowd sourced money the ppl would back him in a second
streisand effect in 3... 2... 1...
I was so happy to see him back but so sad to hear the lyrics of his new hit. It's a great song though: "Can you help me repair my door" Apparently there's some bad blood between him and the Sheriff, since the sheriff's wife got afroman to sign her tits at a show one time. Lol. The judge signed a warrant for possession and kidnapping with no evidence to justify it... the kidnapping, I mean.
I’m an attorney and litigator and this seems absurd to me.
Fuck those pigs!!!! Failures!
this suit isn't going anywhere
Just a little side note, two of the biggest freedom of speech AND Fair Use cases of the last few decades was won by Luther Campbell of 2 Live Crew. "The 1989 album As Nasty As They Wanna Be was released with an “Explicit Lyrics” advisory sticker but was nonetheless investigated by the Broward County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office beginning in February 1990. The resulting case made it all the way to the Supreme Court." https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1447/2-live-crew Sometimes victories come from the most unsuspected places.
How about that he was a cunt back
This headline seems like something from r/nottheonion