Jay-Z calls to end of rap lyrics being used as criminal evidence

[Emvee 7,073]

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 don’t get a say, and your opinion on rap is not valid. period.

Wow people still using Twink as a pejorative in 2022 lol  

[StressedOut 539]

They're gonna throw gaga in jail for killing her former and leaving her on highway 10 OMG 

[HEARTSTOP 3,109]

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.  

[Alannah 2,900]

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. 

[LadyEnigma 952]

this is the dumbest thing ever, if you’re 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 it’s 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 i’m 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 they’d use Aura as some kind of evidence, that isn’t 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 that’s true*

[BBhomemaker 5,611]

9 hours ago, Alannah said:

Homophobia, sexism, transphobia, etc. all exist in pop music as well.

Sorry i had to 

[Chromatography 9,505]

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?

[KORG 4,756]

This is violently American.

Let's investigate Cher for shooting a man and telling everyone in bang bang.

Crazy country.

[RenegAde 16,052]

From some of the responses, many people here clearly don't understand what it means for something to be admissible as evidence.

[Regina George 59,387]

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 it’s a no. I don’t understand the necessity for all this “rap is bad” or “rap is good” talk that clearly misses the point of this thread. 

[JanStan 558]

I don’t know the context that the music is being used as evidence so I can’t speak to that specifically. BUT I don’t think that rap music (or any art) should be assumed to be the cause of anyone’s 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 don’t 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. 
 
 

[stvn 492]

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. 

[stvn 492]

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.

[stvn 492]

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 it’s never admissible.