Sounds like a big, blue club of whiny little bitches.
I mean, discovery should be fun. “I need all body cam footage from all cops.”
All reports of misdeeds even if the department ignored them and/or cleared the officers.
Reminds me of Brett Farve suing Pat McCafee for mentioning his Mississippi swindle
Man, I forgot about that fucking shitbag move. I never did look to see what came of it.
He won.
Of course he did.
Hey! We’re a corrupt police force, and by showing that by having actors act like that created unnecessary attention and annoying questions we don’t want to deal, with.
Yep yep, totally innocent person behavior
ACAB
1312
Yea its the actors fault…
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/former-city-miami-police-officer-sentenced-corruption-charges
https://miamibeach411.com/blog/miami-river-cops
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article314850877.html
https://www.foxnews.com/us/miami-police-chief-being-fired-after-6-months-on-the-job
It will all depend on the judge. A MAGA judge will throw the First Amendment down the shitter for Dear Leader.
Sounds like they can just use the fox news defense. No reasonable person would take the movie litterally as fact.
Cops never heard of Barbara Streisand?
I think she got deported by ICE, no?
Was a great song, easy to sing along too.
And play loud with the windows down
My tinfoil hat theory is that song was created to try to push down page rankings when searching for the source of the Streisand effect. Much like Boris Johnson and his model bus painting.
I have completely forgotten about what exactly Streisand was trying to hide. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the actual media she was embarrassed about.
This is the real Streisand effect
She was trying to have a picture of her house removed from a website. Link to wiki that contains the picture.
Anytime i see a link to that article, i like to click over and take another look at that house. I like to think of it as doing my part keeping the Streisand effect strong.
If the picture were cropped to be just her house, it’s not even a particularly high resolution.
Keep in mind this was 2003 when it was absolutely not the norm to be able to see the aerial view of any given celebrity’s house, which also tells a lot about layout and entry points.
It’s interesting to read that, now that we have more of a bird’s eye view of the whole situation. Streisand claims she never even wanted the image taken down, she just wanted her name removed from the image.
It’s pretty funny in retrospect, if removing her name was her goal, she probably could have made it happen if instead of filing a lawsuit, she just called the webmaster for that site and asked nicely.
I find it hilarious that I know what her house looks like but don’t know a single one of her songs. Given that she wanted to hide the former and as an artist, probably wanted everyone to be exposed to the latter.
I grew up listening to her music because my parents liked it.
Now I also know that on a personal level she’s probably a whiny little bitch
A diva, even.
This may be generational. There is not likely to be much intersection between the group of people who listened to Streisand and those who listen to Swift.
To be fair I don’t listen to Swift either, but yes, I’m closer to her fans in age probably.
I’m somewhere in the middle. I am aware of both but really payed no attention to either.
Two years later, Masnick coined the name when writing about Marco Beach Ocean Resort’s takedown notice to urinal.net (a site dedicated to photographs of urinals) over its use of the resort’s name.
I guess that exists
Defamation requires 4 things:
- An objectively false statement, portrayed as fact, not opinion.
- Publication to a third party.
- Negligence on the publisher, i.e. failure to attempt to confirm the truth of the matter.
- Actual harm to the victim’s reputation and business.
So number 2 is clearly covered as they produced and released a film about it. Number 4 would arguably be covered by the defamation per se doctrine which says that accusation of a crime is de fact harmful to one’s reputation.
The problem with the suit is that the film makes so claims of fact. It is disclaimed as a dramatization. A fictional story only based on actual events. Essentially it’s historical fiction but with contemporary events as the basis of the history. The characters portrayed are neither named as our based on real cops.
Those things don’t necessarily protect them in and of itself, though. It really comes down to whether a reasonable person watching the film would come away thinking the events were fictional or a claim of facts. But I think the general audience is aware how accurate “based on a true story” films tend to be. No one reasonable is expecting the film to be a documentary.
And with public figures there’s also the actual malice requirement, which requires the defendant to have evidence they were telling a lie and, or have shown so little interest in checking the facts that the only reasonable explanation is they were actively avoiding the truth.
This sounds like a description of Faux News.
That’s true. But I’m not sure your average cop in Miami counts as a public figure for the purposes of defamation.
But the “Miami police department” does, and these character aren’t named as specific individuals. Only the police department. The police department is certainly, itself, a “public figure”, which the defendants could easily demonstrate using the public figure’s social media posts and press releases. Is there case law saying that a group such as a cprporation cannot constitute a “public figure”?
And this is especially the case for such an iconic police department. The Miami PD is up there with the NYPD, the Chicago PD, and the LAPD as default “we want to do a police story” departments. There are other major cities where maybe you could claim they aren’t as public of figures, the Cleveland PD or Portland PD would leave the audience asking why them unless there’s something to it, and even more so for smaller cities like Eugene, OR or Akron, OH. But “I want to do a story about crooked cops” leaves Miami as one of the cliche settings.
That’s fair. A case could be made as such for sure. I’m not aware of any case law for our against that assertion.
Afroman all over again. Snowflake white conservatives are mad they got called out.
Whoops, this one hit a little too close to home, didn’t it?
Discovery is gonna be hilarious.
If some random Redditors are to be believed the film actually paints the police in a semi positive light. There are a few bad cops but supposedly at the end most of the cops are shown to be acting with integrity.
Okay.
But the thing about defamation lawsuits is that the plaintiff (Miami PD) has to show and demonstrate that it’s in fact defamation. Mostly that comes down to lying about it and causing reputational harm.
The defendants (or rather a team if interns owned by their lawyers,) gets to go into the the plaintiffs records to discredit those claims.
In other words, the lawyers will get an all-access pass to Miami PD’s normally confidential files detailing extensive corruption. Because let’s be honest, there’s corruption there.
They’ll drop it before it gets to discovery.
Or they will just not comply with discovery, and also demand the case be sealed. As is tradition lately.
Exactly, that’s what made it so unbelievable and unrealistic.
