Tuesday, November 10, 2020
Putting Rap Lyrics on Trial is a Violation of Free Speech
www.aclu.org/news: If song lyrics could be used as evidence in criminal trials, many of the most famous artists in history would be in serious trouble. Bob Marley sings “I Shot the Sheriff.” The Talking Heads’ biggest hit is “Psycho Killer.” The opening lines to Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” are “Mama, just killed a man.” Fortunately for these artists, artistic expression is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This makes me so angry. It's racism, plain and simple. Rap has been associated for gang violence for so long because they address it, along with other issues that plague black communities like mass incarceration and police brutality, and white people turn around and use it as "proof" that black men are violent when the whole point is to expose the white people that antagonize them. And I think it's great to bring up things like white supremacist tattoos and country songs about violence, and how white people don't bat an eye at that when they are arguably more blatant. It is an incredibly important part of acknowledging privilege to put yourself in a situation, think about how people would treat you, and then think about how BIPOC in the same situation would be treated. If a black person is suspected of violence because they experienced violence in their lifetime and listen to music that reflects that experience, why am I not questioned for listening to "Psycho Killer" and "Bohemian Rhapsody"? (deleted last comment because of typo that annoyed me)
Reading this article was infuriating and unfortunately not surprising at all. It is undeniable that the submission and relevance of certain pieces of evidence is heavily based on the race of the defendant. It is impossible to deny how heavily this particular case is related to the race of Christopher Bassett. This argument that the work of an artist demonstrates their ability to be violent is absurd, particularly when it is only used in particular scenarios (read: when the defendant is not white). If we were to use this logic on pieces of art that are not rap music, any actor who has played a murderer, rapist, or any type of criminal could have that role used against them. The fact that Bassett’s music could be used against him, but a person tattoo representing the Aryan Brotherhood could not be, demonstrates that this is certainly a racial issue. I hope the amicus brief the ACLU files is successful.
Every day I get more and more frustrated with our criminal justice system. Regardless on whether Christopher Basset is guilty or not, his music is protected by free speech especially with a case that establishes precedent. I think it's disgusting that our justice system will do anything to prove people of color as guilty which is in complete contrast to the system of "innocent until proven guilty" that is used with white people. The idea that character evidence can be used in a trial to begin with makes me sick but I can not imagine the thousands of cases where character evidence has been used against POC but not against white people or dismissed in their cases. The idea that certain forms of speech can be used as evidence but not others is always a recipe for disaster as well, with the types of evidence allowed to be used being popular among POC communities and not that popular among the white community. I think these covert acts of racism and micro-aggressions are what allows our justice system to continue this cycle of systemic racism without any questions being raised. It is disgusting and appalling.
“Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” This statement is taken to the next level. This is a statement that everyone knows. It is part of your Miranda Rights. It is known by everyone that you have the right to say what you want and you cannot be penalized for it but it can also be used against you in a court. They sound contradicting but they are not. It’s a weird line to walk. This is all to say that technically, the court has every right to use songs and its lyrics as evidence just they would use a recording of your conversation as evidence or a video of you as evidence. But song is considered a form of free speech and so it is important to note that the act of creating the song is protected under this right, or so I believe. What is happening, that this article explains, is a violation of the first amendment right because of the lyrics being the cause of the case. Everyone is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and what you say into proof of a crime only context towards one. The fact that they used the lyrics as evidential proof screams that they are violating a fundamental constitutional right and needs rectifying.
Post a Comment