[Saddam Hussein]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-rap-singer-20141120-story.html

what

I don't understand

what

[Rushy]

It sounds like he specifically talked about a single gang and promoted it, which could in fact qualify as promoting direct violence, which isn't protected under freedom of speech.

[juner]

It sounds like he specifically talked about a single gang and promoted it, which could in fact qualify as promoting direct violence, which isn't protected under freedom of speech.

Literally what Gangsta Rap did for a very, very long time. Bloods, Crips, literally talking about killing specific people. It is ridiculous.

Although it seems that Chamillionaire was right, Hip Hop Police...

[Rushy]

Literally what Gangsta Rap did for a very, very long time. Bloods, Crips, literally talking about killing specific people. It is ridiculous.

Although it seems that Chamillionaire was right, Hip Hop Police...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSipXuqHt40

Simply because others got away with it doesn't make it not a crime. If you stole groceries, citing an instance in which a man stole groceries and got away with it prior to you stealing would not support the idea that your theft was not a crime.

[beardo]

If it were up to me, every rapper would get prosecuted simply for being rappers.

[juner]

Literally what Gangsta Rap did for a very, very long time. Bloods, Crips, literally talking about killing specific people. It is ridiculous.

Although it seems that Chamillionaire was right, Hip Hop Police...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSipXuqHt40

Simply because others got away with it doesn't make it not a crime. If you stole groceries, citing an instance in which a man stole groceries and got away with it prior to you stealing would not support the idea that your theft was not a crime.

That is a false equivalency, since it isn't actually a crime. It is protected speech

The equivalent in your example would be if a person suggested stealing groceries and then someone took that literally and stole groceries which resulted in the person who said it being arrested while not actually having stolen anything.

[Rushy]

That is a false equivalency, since it isn't actually a crime. It is protected speech

The equivalent in your example would be if a person suggested stealing groceries and then someone took that literally and stole groceries which resulted in the person who said it being arrested while not actually having stolen anything.

Depending on what the lyrics say, it might not be protected speech. Inciting direct violence has never been legal. I can't march in the streets and say "kill all ze jews!! heil hitler!!" because that would be hate speech, which is a crime and not protected by the first amendment. Most rap songs are purposely vague, and this author's songs might not be that way.

[juner]

I can't march in the streets and say "kill all ze jews!! heil hitler!!"

If you were a music artist, actor, author, etc. and you said those things in your work it would be protected. That is the case here. I can cite you many examples of rap songs that are not vague at all and talk about killing specific people, not that it matters.

[Rushy]

If you were a music artist, actor, author, etc. and you said those things in your work it would be protected. That is the case here. I can cite you many examples of rap songs that are not vague at all and talk about killing specific people, not that it matters.

As I said before though, citing examples of people who weren't prosecuted doesn't make it not a crime. If I take "kill all ze jews" and put it into a song, that is still hate speech and is not protected, especially if the song specifically results in people actually killing jews or was meant to very seriously incite people to do so. Hate speech doesn't magically become legal when you put musical notes in the background.

[juner]

As I said before though, citing examples of people who weren't prosecuted doesn't make it not a crime.

Which is why I said "not like it matters" since it isn't a crime to begin with.

If I take "kill all ze jews" and put it into a song, that is still hate speech and is not protected.

It definitely is protected. That is the only reason there is a genre of white power music, which is significantly worse than the case in particular, or even your example. I also liked how you picked the Jews... Very telling.

[Ghost of V]

If you were a music artist, actor, author, etc. and you said those things in your work it would be protected. That is the case here. I can cite you many examples of rap songs that are not vague at all and talk about killing specific people, not that it matters.

As I said before though, citing examples of people who weren't prosecuted doesn't make it not a crime. If I take "kill all ze jews" and put it into a song, that is still hate speech and is not protected, especially if the song specifically results in people actually killing jews or was meant to very seriously incite people to do so. Hate speech doesn't magically become legal when you put musical notes in the background.

It's creative license. The Supreme Court has ruled in the favor of rappers before on almost this exact issue.

[Shane]

That is a false equivalency, since it isn't actually a crime. It is protected speech

The equivalent in your example would be if a person suggested stealing groceries and then someone took that literally and stole groceries which resulted in the person who said it being arrested while not actually having stolen anything.

Depending on what the lyrics say, it might not be protected speech. Inciting direct violence has never been legal. I can't march in the streets and say "kill all ze jews!! heil hitler!!" because that would be hate speech, which is a crime and not protected by the first amendment. Most rap songs are purposely vague, and this author's songs might not be that way.

... Yes you can

Didn't Eminem write a bunch of songs about killing and hurting a specific person? And stabbing a fag and lez with a jagged edge?

[Rushy]

Which is why I said "not like it matters" since it isn't a crime to begin with.

Except it is. Incitement of violence is a federal crime, it is not protected speech, regardless of whether its on a sign or in a song.

It definitely is protected. That is the only reason there is a genre of white power music, which is significantly worse than the case in particular, or even your example. I also liked how you picked the Jews... Very telling.

This is the part where you steer the debate off course and backpedal.

... Yes you can

Didn't Eminem write a bunch of songs about killing and hurting a specific person? And stabbing a fag and lez with a jagged edge?

I just got done saying lack of prosecution does not mean it is not a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Even though this specific case, the KKK member was eventually released, it is only because he did not incite "imminent violence" which is what they could show these rap lyrics did. You can say terrible things, but you can't say terribly specific things. Go ahead and post to your Facebook that you'll assassinate the President and see what happens. I'm sure it will go over well.

[juner]

It definitely is protected. That is the only reason there is a genre of white power music, which is significantly worse than the case in particular, or even your example. I also liked how you picked the Jews... Very telling.

This is the part where you steer the debate off course and backpedal.

And this is the part where you start deflecting because you know you are wrong. I literally reiterated my stance in the very sentence you quoted and said I "backpedaled" on. "It is definitely protected." I am starting to think you are having some comprehension problems. Or you are playing a game and not paying attention.

I just got done saying lack of prosecution does not mean it is not a crime.

Right, lack of being a crime means it is not a crime.

Go ahead and post to your Facebook that you'll assassinate the President and see what happens. I'm sure it will go over well.

Again, false equivalency.

[Rushy]

And this is the part where you start deflecting because you know you are wrong. I literally reiterated my stance in the very sentence you quoted and said I "backpedaled" on. "It is definitely protected." I am starting to think you are having some comprehension problems. Or you are playing a game and not paying attention.

I'm not sure how else I can explain this to you. Hate speech that incites violence is literally a federal crime, no matter how many times you say "lol no it isn't ur dum" that isn't going to change anytime soon.

Again, false equivalency.

Inciting violence is falsely equivalent to inciting violence. Okay.

[Ghost of V]

Rap lyrics as evidence


... the state supreme court agreed that the verses never should have come into evidence.

[Rushy]

Rap lyrics as evidence


... the state supreme court agreed that the verses never should have come into evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Ghost of V]

Rap lyrics as evidence


... the state supreme court agreed that the verses never should have come into evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No.

[juner]

I'm not sure how else I can explain this to you. Hate speech that incites violence is literally a federal crime, no matter how many times you say "lol no it isn't ur dum" that isn't going to change anytime soon.

Except that is protected speech, set by precedent of court rulings. But that is okay, keep chiming on showing how you don't understand it at all.

Again, false equivalency.

Inciting violence is falsely equivalent to inciting violence. Okay.

Okay, Rushy. I will let you take time to figure out why the examples aren't equal.

[Rushy]

No.

You didn't even read the OP or the argument, did you? No one spoke a single word about using a singer's lyrics as evidence that he committed a different crime. This is about whether or not this singer's lyrics are defined as hate speech with intent to incite violence.