Emvee 7,078 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 2 hours ago, FentyGa said: once again, twinks on GGD criticising rap you dont understand this genre. this genre does not work the same way pop music does. this genre is not for you. you donât get a say, and your opinion on rap is not valid. period. Wow people still using Twink as a pejorative in 2022 lol  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StressedOut 542 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 They're gonna throw gaga in jail for killing her former and leaving her on highway 10 OMGÂ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEARTSTOP 3,109 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Prohibiting certain lyrics would absolutely be censorship, and opens so many other cans of worms. However, if someone committed a crime, and their lyrics are straight up confessing it, corroborating it, or constitute proof that makes sense with the case, they should definitely be used as evidence. Take for example R Kelly's lyrics he used to sing in foreign countries about underaged girls having their vaccinations and passports so he could take them with him to America. I know it's not rap, but the point still stands for any genre or expression of art. Or imagine if Eminem attacked a gay person, his homophobic lyrics could be used as evidence to show his past homophobia and lead the case towards a hate crime judgement.  IDGAF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alannah 2,900 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Homophobia, sexism, transphobia, etc. all exist in pop music as well. So for folks using that as an example as to why "rap bad" - just don't. That's not even the issue. Rap being used as evidence is incredibly racially biased. I'm glad Jay-Z and other musicians are fighting for that. It's already an incredibly censored genre when promoting their art to the general public. If an attorney has to resort to using lyrics as evidence, their client needs to find a better attorney. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyEnigma 952 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 this is the dumbest thing ever, if youâre going to criminalize lyrics why only rap? personally if someone has committed a crime and they were dumb enough to publish the info in any medium then itâs on them, this is obviously race motivated so i def support the artists here. *just read thru some more replies, i can see where lines get blurred based on the lyrical content of some songs being dramatized & fictionalized, but iâm just trying to make a blanket statement that if there was a case of say Gaga legit killing someone on the highway i could get why theyâd use Aura as some kind of evidence, that isnât censorship but rather consequences for your actions/words* (that was a ridiculous example but idk what else to say) *also if this includes FORMING a case out of the lyrics than that is WAY worse and ignore the upper statement if thatâs true* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBhomemaker 5,611 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 9 hours ago, Alannah said: Homophobia, sexism, transphobia, etc. all exist in pop music as well. Sorry i had to Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromatography 9,530 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 21 hours ago, RenegAde said: Wow do people love to act like these lyrics don't represent 70 - 80% of rap music out there today. Can we all just stop with the hypocrisy rap on the radio is mostly garbage as is pop and everyone other genre of music. why are you acting so naive? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KORG 4,756 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 This is violently American. Let's investigate Cher for shooting a man and telling everyone in bang bang. Crazy country. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegAde 16,102 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 From some of the responses, many people here clearly don't understand what it means for something to be admissible as evidence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regina George 59,387 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 I mean if the crime was committed for real and if someone is clearly confessing to that exact crime in their lyrics (pop, rock, rap or whatever genre) then they should be looked into. If people just assume the crime was committed because someone heard it in a lyric then itâs a no. I donât understand the necessity for all this ârap is badâ or ârap is goodâ talk that clearly misses the point of this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanStan 558 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 I donât know the context that the music is being used as evidence so I canât speak to that specifically. BUT I donât think that rap music (or any art) should be assumed to be the cause of anyoneâs bad behavior.  With that said, why do people insist on denying that rap music PERPETUATES a culture or violence, misogyny, homophobia etc that no other genre does? Yes, those lyrics and themes are prevelant in other genres, BUT they donât have the absolutely destructive power on their audiences like they do on black communities and normalizes these behaviors.  If there was true concern about the welfare of marginalized groups, denying facts is not the way to do it no matter how difficult it is.   Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stvn 492 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 23 hours ago, gumzy3000 said: I wonder to what extent rap songs can be used for evidence? For example, someone gets murdered or rap*d and there is clear evidence of this happening and there is proof in some song lyrics of said event, why can't that be used against the rapper? We shouldn't rely solely on the song but with some additional evidence, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use anything really as evidence in court? Also, we shouldn't limit this to just rap but any musical genre. I am not understanding how this is racist... we are talking about real crimes and victims. If there is a crime, we should find proof and evidence wherever possible.  That's what I was wondering until I actually read the bill. It just requires a higher standard for admissible evidence -- it does not mean that lyrics can never under any circumstances be admissible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stvn 492 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 I didn't want to comment here until I did some research, and I'm glad I did, because I initially thought there might not be a need for this bill. Most of the people commenting in this thread should do the same (research), because there is a lot of misinformation here already. My takeaways after reading a few articles as well as the full text of the bill: 1) There is a lot of racism in some of the comments. It's not racist to criticize misogyny, homophobia, and violence, but it does have racist undertones when certain people only get up in arms about these things when they are in rap/a culture they aren't a part of. Especially when most of the people who complain don't understand the references, culture, and context of the lyrics they are so up in arms about. If you really wanted to have a conversation about violence and misogyny, you wouldn't wait until black people or rap were mentioned to rail about it, and yet that's what so many do. 2) This bill does NOT just protect rap musicians. It is worded to protect all creative works of all people period regardless of who they are or what type of music they make (it also includes writing, visual art, etc). 3) This bill does NOT say all lyrics must be excluded in ALL cases! It outlines a higher burden of proof/process that must be reached/performed for a judge to admit a creative work as evidence. If you are unfamiliar with law, basically there are a lot of things that happen BEFORE a trial even happens -- a judge decides what is admissible as evidence, and evidence must be relevant to the facts of the case the prosecution intends to prove. Even WITHOUT this bill, rap lyrics would have to be considered admissible by a judge to even be allowed to be presented to a jury, and in some cases, the judge can admit evidence with the caveat that it can only be used/presented in a certain way. Here is an excerpt that describes the additional measures (beyond the existing expectation that it must be relevant to be admissible) that the bill would require that the prosecution* prove: (A) LITERAL, RATHER THAN FIGURATIVE OR FICTIONAL, MEANING AND, WHERE THE WORK IS DERIVATIVE, THAT THE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO ADOPT THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE WORK AS THE DEFENDANT'S OWN THOUGHT OR STATEMENT; (B) A STRONG FACTUAL NEXUS INDICATING THAT THE CREATIVE EXPRESSION REFERS TO THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE CRIME ALLEGED; (C) RELEVANCE TO AN ISSUE OF FACT THAT IS DISPUTED; AND (D) DISTINCT PROBATIVE VALUE NOT PROVIDED BY OTHER ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. 3. WHERE THE COURT ADMITS CREATIVE EXPRESSION AS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE, THE COURT HAS A DUTY TO APPLY CAREFUL REDACTIONS, PROVIDE LIMITING EXPLANATION  4) I do think there is a need for this. Where the use of rap lyrics is particularly insidious is during sentencing. After someone is already convicted of a crime, the jury also meets to decide sentencing in many cases. During a sentencing hearing, the prosecution can show an artists rap video. It doesn't even have to have relevance to the facts of the case, because the case is over. Black people ALREADY get tougher sentences for the SAME crimes, and if you get a particularly racist jury, showing them a rap video in sentencing could make it even worse. So I support this bill.  *I suppose the defense could also attempt to admit this type of evidence, but for the purposes of this discussion, it's usually gonna be the state/prosecution. Last edit sorry: Unfortunately, I don't think this would apply to sentencing, only the original trial. Sentencing judges have very wide authority to admit evidence into sentencing hearings, and it doesn't have to be relevant to the facts of the case, necessarily, but to their "future threat" or "past behaviors" and etc. And often, evidence not admissible at trial can be used during sentencing. Unfortunately, the language of this bill only refers to the trial phase. This is likely because it would be less likely to pass if it took away too much of a judge's authority to admit evidence during sentencing, but I'm not sure. Either way, I support the bill, but the sentencing part is one of the scariest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stvn 492 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 2 hours ago, RenegAde said: From some of the responses, many people here clearly don't understand what it means for something to be admissible as evidence. Yes, they dont, but the whole point of this bill is to add more standards to what is admissible, not say itâs never admissible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.