this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
29 points (100.0% liked)

Art

651 readers
4 users here now

This is a community for art in any medium. Welcome!

Rules:

  1. This is a community to discuss all things related to art. Posts should be relevant to art, such as sharing art or news about art. To clarify, when we say "any medium," this includes media such as painting, film, music, literature, performance, video games, etc.
  2. Keep things civil. Critiquing art is fine but attacking other users for their opinions is not.
  3. Avoid excessive self-promotion. Yes, this is subjective and will be based on how popular this community becomes overall. If you can see a post about your own work on the first few pages, don't post another.
  4. Follow site-wide rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Photographer@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
29
Rapper BG ordered to have all future songs approved by US government (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/art@lemmy.world
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps he can make that speech but not sell it so long as it's profiting from a specific crime that happened?

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's hard to argue that any kind of publication isn't for profit though since attention generally means money.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which is still only relevant if the person is publishing something about a specific crime they committed.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

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?