Defamation Lawsuit Against Afroman Filed by Ohio Cops Will Partially Proceed
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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I have heard that all of those police officers are consumers of frumunda cheese. That they enjoy performing in donkey shows. And that they drink one another's urine directly from the tap.
Nobody gives even the slightest of fucks what Sqrlsy shits out of its word hole, and it drives the poorly written NPC to follow its anger subroutines.
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."
Bullshit. Shame is an automatic disqualifier for law enforcement, there's no way the officers suffered anything.
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.
One of the three things above is likely a fact.
I could easily see all three of them being facts.
The first is standard BLM rhetoric, the second common among any criminal justice reformer and how exactly is the third defamatory even if untrue?
"Outing" people was considered like doxxing. Remember *looks at calendar* five years ago?
Even if the "outing" was just Facebook noticing that you're a faggot and sending you faggy ads.
Dude, the “It’s defamatory when LGBTQ/minority activists say it is.” ship sailed so long ago you can’t even see it on the horizon standing on either the BLM rhetoric ship or the criminal justice reformer ship.
“Gay/Lesbian is hate speech when non-gay people say it!” departed somewhere after “Nigger is hate speech when non-black people say it!” and before “Brother/You people is hate speech when non-black people say it!”.
I'm sure leftists would argue that falsely calling gay/lesbian isn't defamation. It's conservatives who don't want to be branded with that label.
Some people don't want others thinking they're gay/lesbian when they're not.
A lot of people don't want others thinking they are a lot of things they are not. Doesn't make it defamation to say so. And don't you have to prove some kind of damage?
Douglass Mackey was sentenced to 7 months in prison today for posting memes, but Ciaramella and Reason are totalitarian faggots who support such things.
Article bout Mackey from The Hill:
They just have to tie in Trump. It's a journo compulsion.
At the time of his arrest in 2021, Twitter said that it had taken down four of Mackey’s accounts.
Trump was also charged with conspiracy against rights in the federal election interference case brought by the Justice Department earlier this year.
The indictment alleges that Trump “did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege and secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States—that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.”
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4263396-election-interference-2016-social-media-influencer-sentenced-prison/
Mackey was not sentenced to 7 months for posting memes.
Why lie, MAGAt?
And you're a half-wit who spews more bullshit than an entire rodeo. "If Reason isn't riding my personal hobbyhorse 24/7 then they're a bunch of commie Nazi mutant traitors!"
How is showing images of them performing official actions any kind of publicity of private lives? Police show their faces in public in uniform. Everyone knows what they do.
How much "unreasonable publicity of private lives" is the officer subject to when they barge into someone's house to find a nonexistent sex dungeon?
He really should sue them for defamation for making it publicly known that he does NOT have a private sex dungeon. How is he supposed to recover from that?
Also, making it publicly known that the guy whose biggest hit song was "Because I got high" apparently doesn't have large amounts of weed lying around. The man's got a reputation to maintain!
Yeah, I haven't and won't see the video, but if he just showed home surveillance and/or publicly available bodycam footage, I don't think you generally have the expectation of a right to privacy when kicking in the door or even just generally hanging out in someone's house.
Maybe if he put up footage of one of them using the restroom or something but, barring that...
Yeah! Take Offissa Chauvin, f'rinstance. He was proud to be seen lynching that Africano in public. Here's hoping the poor pasty-faced crybaby takes out a loan to file a countersuit against Floyd for instigating that unreasonable publicity by deliberately dying. Right now would be a good time, while the Trumpanzees are hooting, snorting and back-flipping for another mostly peaceful book burning.
Can ordinary citizens sue cops every time they they are subjected to a Perp Walk?
'Just askin' for a friend.
“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.”
Perhaps those things should go to a jury. Let the jurors decide if his charges were seriously meant, and if so whether the charges were true.
Though in this day and age, I don’t see how they’d let you sue for being called a lesbian.
Calling the cop "cis" would be the unforgivable sin.
Though in this day and age, I don’t see how they’d let you sue for being called a lesbian.
JFC, have *you people* been unconscious for the last 2.5-3 decades of the SJW-hierarchy Hate Speech Thunderdome?
This is essentially the Bostock Decision.
If I, a straight cis male, go around the office recruiting for a lesbian softball league, despite the fact that lesbians definitively wouldn’t have sex with me and I’m literally talking about softball, I’m guilty of sexual harassment and hate speech and my employer is legally obligated to reeducate me if not terminate my employment outright.
If, however, a gay cis female or straight(?) trans male(?) were to go around the office recruiting for a lesbian softball league, they’re engaged in equally protected free speech and cannot be terminated.
Speaking of defamation...
Do we know who called in the report of Afroman having a basement kidnap-dungeon?
Confidential Informant... In other words the cops made it up.
The whole case should have been tossed as the Deputies were acting in their official capacity at the time. Allowing them to sue Afroman for defamation is basically allowing the government to sue for defamation.
I'm not surprised to see the MAGAt authoritarians who infest these comment sections supporting the badged thugs, however.
Your surprise reveals your thought processes to shallow and poorly-informed. Believe me (if you can) as a MAGA type. We fear "the badged" and the oppression they are capable of enforcing/inflicting on the politically incorrect as much if not more than the BLMbnvm types fear them. Which, between the two mentioned groups, gets to burn, loot, assault and batter, and even kill with little chance of being exposed to serious prosecution and the risk of a long prison sentence?
Threatened to kill me or steal my money - if I were on a jury and found those to be true facts, I still would vote no to awarding these thin skinned clowns any money.
Cicaramello must've had his Klan hood on backwards if he even sat through the overly polite videos at all. When Reason was on mimeo sheets and George Wallace got 46 electoral votes, every ku-kluxer had sense enough to wear a Klan hood when breaking in and looting the homes of Less Redneck Races. Iowa's Landover Baptist bigots have only themselves to blame for looting in daylight and out of uniform.