Cops sue rapper for using raid footage in viral music videos

Rapper Afroman has said he plans to countersue and keep making videos.

See full article...

 

[Jeff S]

Free speech is allowed to be commercial speech, and criticizing public officials for violating your civil rights and stealing your cash or property has GOT to be protected free speech. I don't give a damn about the Ohio law, the 1st amendment overrides Ohio law.

Those videos are clearly an act of political speech, criticizing abuses by public officials. That he makes money off of it is secondary to the political speech. News media organizations make money off their use of such video too - but clearly that is protected. Why should "the news" be protected, but Afroman's videos and merch not be protected?

You know, if you don't want to be the subject of public ridicule, maybe don't eat the man's lemon pound cake. I don't see anything in a search warrant that entitles police officers to help themselves to anything they want of someone else's property. They can seize evidence of a crime, but I fail to see how that cake was evidence of a crime.

What's next, see a guitar you like and just steal the guitar? A famous musician's guitar or other musical instrument could be worth hundred's of thousands or even millions of dollars. Much more than a new guitar from guitar center - which itself might cost a couple thousand dollars.

 

[Jeff S]

I have to wonder why Afroman has set up shop in Ohio in the first place. I get it that it's an incredibly inexpensive place to live when compared to Cali but damn...there's a reason it's so inexpensive.

Oregon is incredibly expensive when compared to Ohio but when compared to Cali it's a bargain.

Come on over here, brother. We won't raid your shit. Hell we'll welcome you to the fuckin' community.

Not just inexpensive . . . I think part of the reason some celebs live here is it just gets them slightly more privacy, usually. Not that media and papparazzi can't come to Ohio of course, but it's still further out of their way. Get them far away from Hollywood, NYC, Atlanta, DC, Houston, etc.

 

[Jeff S]

Every single thing the Sheriff has said to justify their complaints has come down to the fact that they were supposedly just doing normal, lawful law enforcement.

But now they’re begging Afroman to really challenge that narrative. It’s going to be really interesting to see the affidavit supporting the warrant. Is it just unconstitutional for lacking sufficient particularity, or did the cops put something on paper, under oath, that can be proven to be a knowing lie.

They were searching for evidence of kidnapping for fucks sake. What possible basis could there be for that?

Just because you have a warrant doesn't mean any and every act by the police is authorized by the warrant. It's possible to have a warrant, and still exceed the constitutional authority of the warrant. The pound cake, while a thing of minor value, clearly theft by the police officer. You don't have the right to help yourself to all the food in a suspect's home - that is stealing their property. Sure it's petty theft, but it's still theft.

It would be one thing to take a small slice of the cake or other food items, put it in an evidence bag, and take it to a lab for analysis for narcotics (since part of the search warrant was searching for illegal narcotics), but clearly, since that officer ATE THE CAKE, he was not concerned about it having narcotics baked in, that's straight up theft.

Likewise, taking any property that doesn't have any potential connection to the charges in the search warrant, would not be covered by the warrant. There is some wiggle room there, however - if police have reason to think contraband could be hidden in objects, they might be able to claim a right to take the property back to the station or other investigative facility, and do a more thorough search offsite, and then return any property in a timely fashion that is found to be clean.

 

[Jeff S]

By the way, I saw those videos two or three months back and am so happy Ars picked up this story.

 

[Jeff S]

I think you could safely say some areas of any state are white supremacist territory.

Ohio has long been a divided state on race. You look back to pre-civil war times, and you had strong abolitionist areas, who were giving refuge to escaped black people who had been formerly enslaved, selling them land or renting homes to them, employing them.

You also had race riots by white people in Ohio, you had sunset towns, you had KKK chapters later after the civil war, you had plenty of racist politicians trying to pass racist laws in the statehouse, but also lots of white allies trying to resist that racism.

It's much the same today, although it does seem the pendulum has been swinging more towards the favor of the racists in the last decade or three.

 

[Jeff S]

He wasn't home, he was on tour. Which is why a kidnapping accusation is a little silly.

I want to state for the record that I don't think Afroman is a kidnapper, but just the fact he was on tour doesn't logically preclude the possibility he COULD be a kidnapper - hypothetically, he could have had one or more trusted co-conspirator who would watch and feed a kidnapping victim who was locked in a room somewhere, while he was out of town.

But again, that's all hypothetical and I really want to know the basis for the search warrant that suggested he had kidnapped someone. I am with others who suspect someone swatted him.

 

[Jeff S]

IANAL and I do sympathize with Afroman over what sure looks like a bullshit raid, but...

A couple things here.

A, commercial speech can be protected but the Supreme Court has consistently held those protections don't go as far as other first amendment protections.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/900/commercial-speech
B, appropriation rights are still a thing and the officers have a pretty solid case here IMO. The video? Probably protected. The shirt currently for sale on Afroman's website that puts one of the officers next to Peter Griffin for a cheap fat joke? I would be absolutely astounded if you found a judge who called that protected speech.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/891/appropriation
The officers aren't going to win on everything they're asking for, but the merchandise seems like a slam dunk to me.

I view that t-shirt as protected political speech. I don't see it as a slam dunk at all. He's making money off of it, but it's also very clearly a protest shirt. He's protesting police abuse that he documented, BY THAT OFFICER and mocking the officer is a part of that protest. Mockery of public officials is protected speech.

People are buying it to wear to participate in that protest.

 

[Jeff S]

Wait til you google "civil forfeiture". Your head will explode.

Oh, I know. I'm familiar and yes, I view that as absolutely unconstitutional depriving people of their property or money without due process.