Artistic censorship and the use of lyrical content against performers: the example of rap music
Countless times performers and lyricists have tried to speak through their songs to convey their own truth. This tactic can be seen as a marketing ploy to boost record sales and bring big profits to music companies. On the other hand, it has often caused problems for artists, especially because of the content of their lyrics, which brought them to court or even led to a conviction against them.
The most common example of a musical genre that has earned the labels of "violent" and "graphic" content images through the lyrics of its songs is rap. One of the main characteristics of rap and its representatives is the rawness and directness of its lyrics. It is no coincidence that most songs that contain obscenities or indecent expressions belong to this genre. However, we should not take rap music out of the hip-hop context, condemn it or highlight only some negative aspects. Hip-hop is basically a form of expression of those who consider themselves oppressed, who fight against the current political system and criticize everything that goes against their values. It should also come as no surprise that hip-hop culture emerged in a highly politicized era.
Rap artists who want to pay tribute to the regions they come from, to represent them, as they typically say, describe every possible and improbable event they have seen or experienced or been told about. This is not just about interpersonal relationships, glorifying romance and love, or spreading political messages, but also a look back at the deeper self. Criminal acts are often mentioned (pimping, murders, drug dealing), so much so that they are idolized and invite imitation. It is clear that these examples are to be avoided and in no case should be considered as a rule.
The fact is that the U.S. Attorney's Office did not take action against rap artists until they became known for writing songs about police and systemic violence and calling for resistance and retaliation. The more rap songs are in the artistic spotlight, the more they are scrutinized for their content. The tip of the iceberg are lyrics that vividly describe criminal activity such as drug dealing, physical violence, attempted (or even committed) murder, stories from prison, survival strategies in the ghettos, and crime as a common theme.
Rap into court
The content of the following lyrics is enough to convict an artist and put him on trial for drug trafficking. The line of defense that rappers cite in similar cases is the representation of their everyday lives in music, rather than the adoption of corresponding practices and actions. Moreover, they claim that their lyrics are a product of artistic creation, i.e. they do not correspond to their real activities (livelihood or not), but only to the description of events for the entertainment of the audience. As a result, no aggravating circumstances can be invoked against them.
Key for key, pound for pound I’m the biggest Dope Dealer and I serve all over town,
Rock 4 Rock Self 4 Self, give me a key let me go to work for more Dollars than your average businessman.
Derek Foster
The judicial authorities of the United States and their representatives seem to have a different opinion. They position themselves separately for each case and document and justify their decision (if it entails detention). For example, the judges argue that some artists describe an event as if they themselves were involved in it (e.g., murder, assault) or knew and had experience with how it could be committed (drug trafficking, pimping etc.)
“Stories like these are playing out all across the country: with alarming regularity, young men are finding themselves in handcuffs, in courtrooms, and often in prison because of their rap lyrics. Rather than acknowledging that these lyrics are the result of creative license, the criminal justice system has effectively denied rap music the status of art, allowing police and prosecutors to present it to juries as autobiography rhymed over a beat—often with devastating consequences. No other fictionalized form, musical or otherwise, is treated this way in court.”
Nielson, Erik, Andrea L. Dennis, and Killer Mike. Rap on Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America. New York: The New Press, 2019.
The motive and content of the song lyrics are thus examined in isolation from other elements such as the socioeconomic background of the artist performing the song. However, a number of serious questions are raised, such as: Can this particular type of music or its derivatives be considered threatening? And does not criminalizing the content of their lyrics violate the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which refers to, among other things, freedom of speech and expression? Why are not authors of crime novels or horror stories facing similar problems? Does the issue of fiction become even more complicated?
Trapping Rap
Following the attack of September 11, 2001, a set of laws known as the PATRIOT Act was passed in the United States, the contents of which provide the framework for investigating any act or expression that could be classified as terrorist. As part of the new anti-terror laws, rap lyrics have also come under scrutiny. This particular genre of music has once again been targeted by the government, which has imposed tighter restrictions on U.S. citizens.
The specific cases were called threat cases (cases that contained the element of threat) and even more, the lyrics as such of the were called real threats. More than 500 cases followed this legal path, and in some states, such as California, Florida, Pennsylvania and New York, they were even a fairly common tactic. Serious crimes drew harsh punishments that were perhaps longer than those that could be imposed on someone who had nothing to do with rap music. As an example, we can mention that life sentences (25 years to life), either life without parole or even the death penalty (in 30 cases) show the seriousness of what was said.
Racial discrimination can also be observed in this passage. It is necessary to highlight a pattern that the defendants follow and that affects them: a) they are African American or Latino, b) they are young people between the ages of 18-25, which means that they are deprived of their political and voting rights or cut off from the labor market at a fairly productive age, and c) they generally receive harsher sentences than whites. This is evident not only in their convictions but also in their arrests, i.e., African Americans or Latinos are arrested more easily than whites, even when accused of the same offense. From this we can conclude that racial categorization (racial profiling) is taking place here as well.
At this point we should point out two cases that confirm the above. The first case concerns Ronnie Fuston. Fuston was sentenced to life without parole in Oklahoma for murder. His defense attorney argued that the defendant had a mental problem (according to an IQ test), had been abused in his childhood, and could not commit a heinous crime under any circumstances. For his part, the prosecutor argued that Fuston's songs proved the opposite, that he was intelligent enough, as evidenced by his lyrics and his ability to write them, and therefore should be sentenced to the most extreme form of punishment, the death penalty. It is true that Fuston's lyrics belonged to the traditional rap theme and referred to drugs and weapons.
Nevertheless, in no case did their contents indicate that he had committed murder. We therefore conclude that the prosecutor attempted to turn the jury and the public against Fuston by focusing on the content of the song lyrics rather than the crime with which he was charged. After all, this tactic was common among prosecutors, i.e., interpreting the defendant's song lyrics verbatim to prove his guilt. So we would say that Fuston would pay for the "raw" style and harsh content of his music.
The second case involves a white woman named Elsebeth Baumgartner who was charged with intimidation and retaliation in 2006. According to the indictments, Baumgartner allegedly harassed a retired civil court judge who happened to preside over a case involving Baumgartner. Baumgartner accused the judge of causing her harm by sending him emails that contained false information about his children. The defendant also allegedly threatened some witnesses. All of the above actions were expressed through rap lyrics that Baumgartner posted online, copying an appropriate and very recognizable rap song from the time (Soldier by Eminem). Baumgartner actually used the song, changing only a few words. This led to the witness couple being directly attacked and forced to leave their home for a period of time in fear for their lives. Baumgartner invoked the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in her lawsuit, claiming that her release was "artistic speech" and not an actual threat, and therefore protected by the Constitution. The judicial authorities took the opposite view and sentenced her to 8 years in prison. After her release, she was denied the right to access the public record.
The above comments lead us to some very important observations, such as that African Americans and minorities in general in the U.S., when accused of serious crimes, generally receive the death penalty. Whites, on the other hand, are accused of less serious crimes, such as making threats, and if convicted, they receive shorter sentences. Yet they are denied the right to access government documents, a right that potentially any citizen or researcher could have. Rights (political rights, voting rights, housing rent, etc.) are thus taken away from almost all convicts, which simultaneously places them in a different caste, a dipole between "us" (i.e., those already convicted) and "them." "However, most condemnations are based on the content of their words and writings and not necessarily on their deeds.
Case studies
It is regrettable to note that the cases applied in the documents are sufficient in number. Specifically, Alex Medina, a fourteen-year-old boy, was charged with first-degree murder in 2013 in the city of Ventura, California, and tried as an adult. During a police search after his arrest, a notebook containing Medina's notes was found, a notebook that was described during his trial as an "autobiographical diary" Medina was sentenced to life in prison and labeled a "psychopath".
But it's not just about the rappers' lyrics; it's also about their stage names. Several of them borrow the names of real people from the past (criminal and non-criminal) in their quest for greater recognition and visibility. Some of them use the word murder as the second part of their name to enhance their violent and tough profile. However, this particular practice can prove fatal and cause them problems with the law. Characteristic examples of rappers with a similar practice are Uncle Murda and C-Murder. In particular, in the case of the second one (C-Murder - real name: Corey Miller), his alias was used as an aggravating factor. Prosecutors argued that the first letter C of his nickname referred to the first letter of his real name, so he could have committed the crime he was charged with. Miller, for his part, argued that the letter C referred to the aural and not the written use of the name, while it also referred to the verb see.
At this point, we must emphasize that not only rap music or its artists are prosecuted, but also those who have declared that their criminal act was inspired by a rap song. A typical example is the case of Antonio Britt, who was convicted of murder, theft, and kidnapping in 1996. During the hearing, a song was played whose lyrics described Britt's crime. The judges therefore concluded that the way he committed the crimes he was accused of, was inspired by this particular song which led to his conviction.
How dangerous is rap?
To understand rap and its content, you do not have to be an African American who grew up in a ghetto, but you do have to have studied it in depth. Many of today's rappers have not done the criminal and delinquent things they talk about in their songs. They either borrow stories using the first person singular as if they had experienced them themselves, or they give a neutral picture of an event. They serve primarily to build a façade, a persona, not only for commercial purposes, but also to convey messages that the real actors cannot, either because they lack lyrical/artistic talent or because they would otherwise have to answer to the courts.
The (untrained) group of experts dealing with gang politics plays a decidedly negative role in this direction as well. Because they take a superficial and generalized approach and do not address the informal or formal, moral and non-moral, gang codes and the metaphorical meanings of rap, they have a leveling effect and label everyone as a potential or quasi-criminal. It is not uncommon for them to be called upon to testify as experts in court but fail to substantiate their claims. For example, they claim that if there are gang members in a music video (including the performers), it means that all participants are gang members. This is a deeply arbitrary conclusion for which there is no evidence. In this way, someone is found guilty of complicity.
Even though the criterion of race has been questioned over time, precisely because rap has more and more white listeners, it should not be disregarded. Country music, for example, and its artists have not come under fire as rap has, at least not to such an extreme degree. There are many who claim that country songs are just as aggressive as rap songs, but because the target audience is white, any faults are swept under the rug.
The fiction we find in the novels seems more digestible than the raw reality the rappers describe. Perhaps something that the average person considers a product of fantasy is less threatening and aggressive than the truth itself, a truth that is only a few miles away from where he might live. With this attitude, American society proves once again why it is called conservative and full of contradictions by many who like to (want to) apply double standards.
To end on a hopeful note, in January 2022, it was announced that a group of rappers, including Jay - Z, Meek Mill, Killer Mike, and Fat Joe, urged New York lawmakers to support Senate Bill S7527, known as "Rap Music on Trial", which would restrict phenomena such as the above, meaning song lyrics cannot be used as evidence against someone in court.
Manos Karousos
Additional references for book lovers:
Nelson G. (1998). Hip Hop America., Penguin Classics, New York.
Nielson E., Dennis A. (2019). Rap On Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America. The New Press, New York.