Rapper BG ordered to have all future songs approved by US government
Rapper BG ordered to have all future songs approved by US government
Ruling leads to claims that BG’s right to free speech unfairly challenged in another case putting rap lyrics on trial
You're viewing a single thread.
That's some horseshit.
Yeah, yeah, he agreed to the terms, and that puts a major kink in fighting the ruling, but the fact that he was coerced into the original agreement and therefore the added restrictions of speech/expression make that moot.
Like out or not, there's an established segment of hip-hop/rap that features violence and crime whether or not the artist has any connection to them. And braggadoccio is another traditional element of the genre.
This would be like telling a bluegrass singer they can't write a murder ballad. Now, obviously,, if they write and perform one about the murder they committed, that's going to be a problem, but that's a separate issue where you can't profit from your crime.
It would be like telling a hair band singer that they can't write about sex and drugs.
It would be like telling a metal band singer that they can't write about smashing faces with hammers.
Doesn't matter what crime they committed, you start infringing on the first amendment, and that's a fucking problem.
This guy is on parole, so it's easy to think that limiting his professional material makes sense. And I can't blame anyone for thinking that. It's dumb, but it's such an easy thought to have that I had a flash of it on first pass through my head "oh, it's only while he's in parole, just save those lyrics for later".
Then I immediately realized how bloody dumb it was amd mentally kicked myself.
For the government to limit the freedom of speech and expression, the standard has to be extremely high. Nothing in the first says "unless you're a past felon", or "you know, unless you're writing hip-hop lyrics". This decision is an unreasonable infringement, and it's based in the systemic racism of the United states as a whole. The judge needs to be removed from the bench.
I absolutely agree, but also see where this is coming from. You cant just turn a blind eye to parole violations and in turn people coming out of prison and going back to lets just call them "Problematic behaviors". Thats entirely what the whole supervised release and parole system is for... How can you have this guy write songs for profit about shooting people while out on parole for gun charges and then with a straight face say that he is trying to rehabilitate?
"Your honor, my client has been working and can show a legitimate income and has an apartment. His latest single "Ill shoot the pig who tries to take me back to prison" has done really well and theres no reason to believe he may reoffend"
I have to agree with you in principle that this is bullshit, because if the person who gets to review his lyrics and who he performs with is a 70yo racist "good ole boy" he is utterly fucked, If he gets someone who gets the rap culture and understands the braggadocio in it, he will probably be fine but we cant base legal decisions around biases like that.
The line is when the work is about a specific crime. It's why convicted persons can't write a movie or book about their crime and sell it. A song would be no different.
But you and I can write whatever kind of crime story we want. I actually do, I'm two books deep in a supernatural mystery series. If I had been convicted of anything at all, that should have no bearing on my first amendment rights, until and unless I'm trying to profit from that crime. Me writing about murder and violence is not the fullness of me as a human being.
If this guy writes a song about shooting a pig before going back to jail, it is a song, and nothing more. He's already open to surprise inspections of his person and property to discover if he has illegal goods, including firearms. By being a felon on parole, possession of those type of things is grounds for his parole to be revoked. While I would consider it dubious at best, should his lyrics point towards a potential plan of action, the state already has recourse to prevent bad acts.
That recourse can be used after release of the track just as well as before, without any need to interfere in his first amendment rights, or his livelihood.
Writing a song is not a bad act, period. One can debate if writing a bad song is a bad act, but that's a separate subject lol.
Tbh though, I have problems with the way parole works in general, and the imprisonment of non violent criminals as well. So I do have bias here. It doesn't really factor in much, but it is there. As parole is supposed to function currently, this specific restriction steps outside of the intent and purpose of parole, so it isn't just me griping about the state of the justice system as it is. This is an unusual decision on the part of the officials involved.
Perhaps he can make that speech but not sell it so long as it's profiting from a specific crime that happened?
That would be in line with laws that already exist in some places. I have no issue with that. The person can still write about their crimes, they just can't profit from it.
It's hard to argue that any kind of publication isn't for profit though since attention generally means money.
Which is still only relevant if the person is publishing something about a specific crime they committed.
Seems they really do gotta have an authentication process pretty much. Like if the dude murdered someone and wants to have a lyric that says "I'm a killa", is that above board?
"Artists" who promote violence should spend their free time in jail.
Who defines the difference between promoting and discussing via the art? Not you, certainly, since you weren't able to predict that difficulty and account for it in your comment.
I'd give you the usual lecture about the value inherent in social catharsis via music and literature in specific, and the arts as whole, but it's blatantly obvious you didn't come here for even polite discourse, much less the thoughts of anyone but yourself.
So, you know, enjoy being you.
What discourse? You're defending violence, there's no discourse.
What if it’s the kind of violence you agree with?
I don't agree with violence. What kind of dumb take is that?
So you don’t agree with some people pointing a gun at a person, restraining them, and taking them to a new location against their will? Then how do you expect these artists to end up in jail? Ask politely?
State violence is violence, even if you believe it’s justified
Why would anyone point a gun at anyone?
That is how people tend to be arrested
No. The police over here don't have any weapons at all. There's rarely any violence or any enforcement during arrests. The police officers just tell you to follow them into their car and you do what they said. That's how civilised societies work.
Yes you do. It might be a small group, or even just a single person. To say otherwise as an obvious lie
Wut? Stop abusing drugs.
So all government officials then? Unless your government has never declared war on another country and only participated in defensive wars for their lands, ofc.
You know, I could actually get behind that somewhat. Until your country gets taken over by fascists/communists and violent opposition is not only desired but should be encouraged via revolutionary anthems.
Let's reach another compromise: lemmy users whose opinions I deem retarded should spend their free time reincarnating.
Do you even read, bro?