This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
One quote from the article........."Continue killing the 18th district police. I promote violence in Philly. Promote violence in Philly."
Would you care to unpack that a little bit?and could you care to explain why his speech is not covered under the first amendment?I'm listening
Maybe you're the guy that can try the freedom of speech experiment with the high ranking government officials. let us know how you make out.
I would imagine the reason his rant is not covered under the First Amendment is the fact his statements could invoke harm on others which wound infringe on their basic rights covered under the same Amendments.
I really don't see that. It's not like somebody is going to watch his little youtube rant and decide to go out and shoot a police officer.Do you think movies which portray police officers or government officials being killed should be banned on the same basis? video games?
The legal interpretation of the 1st Amendment doesn't agree with you, at least past a certain point. If he was naming a particular officer by name as a target to kill, I presume you'd be saying much the same thing but legally that would be a death/terrorist threat and he'd rightfully be arrested. A more generalized threat, like against an entire precinct for example, is a little more uncertain in that regard.
This never happens, I mean its not like anybody ever takes Bin-Ladens rants to kill westerners serious either. There is always somebody deranged enough to listen.
Bin Ladens rants are aimed at a specific subset of people waiting on his signal to go. They don't go from regular folks to killing machines because they see a Bin Laden rant.
It is, and should be, against the law to incite others to commit violence. What's the difference between this and Charles Manson encouraging his followers to kill people?
What's the difference between this and rap songs that call for violence against police?
I don't think Ice-T was ever jailed for "Cop Killer". I would suppose that he has a lot more influence to incite others to commit violence...
No, but it does give disturbed people encouragement that other people feel the way they do and make them think it's 'ok' to kill. An unstable person watching enough of these rants could be convinced that they are doing the right thing by killing cops. I defended Ice T's Copkiller because I considered it 'art' but simply posting a video online telling people to kill cops should be illegal.
The farthest that the rap songs that I'm familiar with go just talk about "the police" or maybe a department like the LAPD, which consists of tens of thousands of individuals. Directing this at a specific precinct may cross the line by being considered a specific enough threat that the 1st Amendment protections don't apply.
I am pretty sure some divisons in LA got singled out. Regardless I don't see this sticking. I don't see the contributing sticking. I think they made a big splashy arrest and in the end the guy walks.
Here's Cop Killer:
Like I said, he only talks about "Cops", not a specific person or precinct or even department.Edit- let me clarify, because he does mention Darryl Gates (former LAPD Chief), but not as an object for violence. He just says F### Darryl Gates.
Political speech. Just as protected.
So if he hooked up some beats and made it rhyme it would have been ok?
Tatum Bell said:Nice hire, Einstein.
