The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Saddam Hussein on January 24, 2015, 04:49:24 PM
-
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-rap-singer-20141120-story.html
what
I don't understand
what
-
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.
-
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...
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-VyUCvOreE[/url)
-
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 (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.
-
If it were up to me, every rapper would get prosecuted simply for being rappers.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Rap lyrics as evidence (http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/rap-lyrics-evidence-is-it-a-crime-rhyme.htm)
... the state supreme court agreed that the verses never should have come into evidence.
-
Rap lyrics as evidence (http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/rap-lyrics-evidence-is-it-a-crime-rhyme.htm)
... the state supreme court agreed that the verses never should have come into evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
-
Rap lyrics as evidence (http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/rap-lyrics-evidence-is-it-a-crime-rhyme.htm)
... the state supreme court agreed that the verses never should have come into evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
No.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You're cramming several completely unrelated points into one weird, incoherent argument, Rushy. Hate speech, incitement, and threats are all very different things, and in any event, none of them are what this guy is being charged with. He's being charged under under this odd law:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/7/8/s182.5
If the law is so broad that music or other speech is being interpreted as "promotion" or a "benefit" of gang activity, then it's unconstitutional and needs to be struck down.
-
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.
No.
-
You're cramming several completely unrelated points into one weird, incoherent argument, Rushy. Hate speech, incitement, and threats are all very different things, and in any event, none of them are what this guy is being charged with. He's being charged under under this odd law:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/7/8/s182.5
If the law is so broad that music or other speech is being interpreted as "promotion" or a "benefit" of gang activity, then it's unconstitutional and needs to be struck down.
pfft I don't care about that.
-
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.
No.
No matter how wrong Rushy is, please add some content to a new posts in this mostly serious forum.
-
Actually, after reading through the thread again and looking up some articles, it seems that Rushy is right in fact. My apologies.
Vauxy, you are wrong it seems.
-
It is common to assume that Rushy is wrong, but in this case, he might actually be right. This is indeed hate speech to incite terroristic acts. It looks like Vauxy is just wrong.
-
Actually, after reading through the thread again and looking up some articles, it seems that Rushy is right in fact. My apologies.
Vauxy, you are wrong it seems.
I acknowledged that in my previous post. Doesn't change the fact that Rushy is wrong and supporting communism. It's arguably very similar, because Tiny Doo had no connections to the shootings. Freedom of speech and artistic expression should protect Tiny Doo from this kind of nonsense. As far as I can tell, the rapper has no connection to any of the nine shootings apart from some lyrics. I don't understand how Eminem can rap about killing his wife and not be prosecuted, yet this guy can rap about unrelated incidents and be prosecuted. Is it because he's black?
-
Actually, after reading through the thread again and looking up some articles, it seems that Rushy is right in fact. My apologies.
Vauxy, you are wrong it seems.
I acknowledged that in my previous post. Doesn't change the fact that Rushy is wrong and supporting communism. It's arguably very similar, because Tiny Doo had no connections to the shootings. Freedom of speech and artistic expression should protect Tiny Doo from this kind of nonsense. As far as I can tell, the rapper has no connection to any of the nine shootings apart from some lyrics. I don't understand how Eminem can rap about killing his wife and not be prosecuted, yet this guy can rap about unrelated incidents and be prosecuted. Is it because he's black?
People getting away with a crime previously is no defense.
-
Actually, after reading through the thread again and looking up some articles, it seems that Rushy is right in fact. My apologies.
Vauxy, you are wrong it seems.
I acknowledged that in my previous post. Doesn't change the fact that Rushy is wrong and supporting communism. It's arguably very similar, because Tiny Doo had no connections to the shootings. Freedom of speech and artistic expression should protect Tiny Doo from this kind of nonsense. As far as I can tell, the rapper has no connection to any of the nine shootings apart from some lyrics. I don't understand how Eminem can rap about killing his wife and not be prosecuted, yet this guy can rap about unrelated incidents and be prosecuted. Is it because he's black?
People getting away with a crime previously is no defense.
Not when no crime took place. Eminem did not kill his wife, only talked about it in his lyrics. Creative license protects him from prosecution. Could Eminem be prosecuted? (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/30/high-court-weighs-internet-free-speech/19724143/)
Dreeben said no. Eminem is saying that "at a concert where people are going to be entertained. This is a critical part of the context. It wasn't as if he stated to her in private or on a Facebook page after having received a protection from abuse order. It wasn't as if he appropriated a style or rap that wasn't anything that he had been doing previously in the marriage and all of a sudden tried to express violent statements that way," Dreeben said. "In the context, I think any reasonable person would conclude at a minimum that there is ambiguity about these statements being a serious intention of expression to do harm. And this is critical here. We're talking about an area in which if the jury finds that it's ambiguous, it has to acquit."
Tiny Doo does not commit the crimes he sings about. He has no previous record. The nine shootings he is being charged with inciting have nothing to do with him. The prosecution cannot even connect the two things. Therefore, the nine shootings are irrelevant in this case and the charges against Tiny Doo should be dropped. Do the gang members say that Tiny Doo's lyrics motivated them to commit the crime? No. Was Tiny Doo involved in the crime? No. Did Tiny Doo sing about it before it happened? Yes, but how is that relevant when he was not involved in the actual crimes being committed?
Would Bob Marley be charged from the grave if someone shot a sheriff?
-
Of course not. He's dead.
-
Of course not. He's dead.
650 previously undiscovered bugs were found in his dreads after death.
One of the lyrics in question here is:
"Ain't no safety on this pistol I'm holding" and the prosecution considers this a "direct correlation to what the gang has been doing." Is this not ridiculous to anyone else?
Absurd. This sounds like a witch hunt more than anything.
-
The same case has expanded its net to include some random guy:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/san-diego-man-with-no-criminal-record-faces-life-in-prison-for-flashing-gang-signs-on-facebook/
The "gang signs" they're talking about are probably just him pointing at someone.
-
The same case has expanded its net to include some random guy:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/san-diego-man-with-no-criminal-record-faces-life-in-prison-for-flashing-gang-signs-on-facebook/
The "gang signs" they're talking about are probably just him pointing at someone.
The prosecutors are walking a fine line here. It seems to be nothing but frivolous nonsense. Hell, I threw up the dub when I was a teenager. Thankfully, I didn't get arrested when biggie was popped in LA.