老澳门开奖结果

In August 2022, several Adams County sheriffs conducted what appears to have been a highly destructive, intrusive, and ultimately fruitless search at the home of Joseph Foreman, a rapper known by the stage name 鈥淎froman.鈥� Mr. Foreman鈥檚 wife recorded the search, as did several security video cameras at their home. Subsequently, Mr. Foreman used this footage to create a series of music videos about the search. The footage shows Mr. Foreman鈥檚 front door being smashed in, officers combing through his home with weapons drawn, and officers searching through his clothing and personal belongings.

In March 2023, the officers shown in the music videos filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. Foreman, alleging various torts in connection with the use of their images from the security footage, and Mr. Foreman鈥檚 criticism of them more broadly. The plaintiffs鈥� primary claim is that Mr. Foreman is unfairly profiting from their 鈥渓ikeness鈥� in his videos and depriving them of the economic benefits of their persona. They also claim that the videos and other statements by Mr. Foreman violate their privacy and defame them.

Mr. Foreman moved to dismiss the lawsuit, and the 老澳门开奖结果 filed an amicus brief in support, arguing that the lawsuit is a classic 鈥淪LAPP鈥� suit, or a 鈥淪trategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,鈥� which seeks to stifle criticism of public officials. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 brief explains that Mr. Foreman鈥檚 music videos are not, as the plaintiffs have mischaracterized, tortious conduct but protected speech. The brief highlights the importance of the First Amendment鈥檚 strong protections for criticism of government actors, including police officers, which acts as a check against the government and is vital to the health and flourishing of a democracy.

In October 2023, the court dismissed the officers鈥� 鈥渞ight of publicity鈥� and 鈥渦nauthorized use of individual鈥檚 persona鈥� claims, holding that 鈥淸c]ertainly, as public servants, the plaintiffs have to expect that they may from time to time be subject to commentary and criticism regarding their performance of their duties.鈥� Although the court allowed the defamation claim to proceed because of the details of some alleged statements, it acknowledged that 鈥淸p]olice officers acting within the scope of their official capacity are public officials . . . and therefore enjoy only limited protection from public discussion and criticism of their performance as public officials . . . Statements made about public officials are constitutionally protected when the statements concern anything that may touch an official鈥檚 fitness for office.鈥�