I first just want to thank everyone for engaging and sharing
their honest thoughts on my topic. I
loved the fiery debates that came out of this lesson.
In our discussion of music and its use in the court system,
many in the class pointed to race and the class of people the music appealed to
as underlying factors for their prosecution.
I know we talked indirectly about it but I wanted to ask how heavily do
you think the race/social class of the artist weigh into the fact that their
music is being introduced in court?
Also, we talked about the artists who make the music having to be
authentic to the struggle in their music (Professor Reitz’ example of Johnny
Cash writing violent lyrics of crime to appeal to his audiences in prison). Do you think the image these artists portray
of themselves should be put into context in court if they or one of their
listeners is being prosecuted? In answering, take into account that some of the
grittiest artists pride themselves on the REALNESS of their persona for their
audience.
Also, since we did not mention Immortal Technique’s “Dancing
with the Devil”, I want to hear your opinions here. I want to know if you think Immortal
Technique should be incarcerated for his involvement in the crime he describes in the song. Also, how do we compare Immortal Technique’s
more artistic approach to describing a crime to 50 Cent’s blatant disregard for
the DA playing his tape back in court?
Do we give Immortal Technique artistic license to speak more creatively
about his crime or do we treat both lyrical expressions as blatant dares for the criminal justice
system to take action?
With that I want to leave you with a very funny short clip
from the cartoon “The Boondocks” featuring a very incriminating verse from
artist Gangstalicious! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYoKTo0wsPI
Thank you again for the class participation and I look
forward to your answers. I’m off to celebrate my birthday but I will check
back!!!
-Spencer
12 comments:
Just a quick note to share with you that I am at an academic conference in Boston at the moment, and yesterday attended a session titled "In/Visible: In/Secure" in which a panel of anthropologists presented findings from their research in various locations around the world about the sometimes invisible, sometimes visible tactics of national security states that produce and reproduce fear, intimidation, violence against its citizenry--the very themes raised in both Leena's and Spencer's classes. In the Q & A, I asked a question about online monitoring, telling them about Spencer and the issues he raised about implications for free speech/artistic expression, self-monitoring/self-regulation and the insidious danger and complicated issue of time (using lyrics retroactively; condemnation of a future act that may or may not occur).
I'll wait to hear what others write in response to Spencer's specific questions posed on the blog but just wanted to share with you an instance of how your ideas get shared with wider audiences....
For those who are interested, I wanted to start off by recommending an excellent law review article that discusses in detail the very issue Spencer so skillfully tuned us into: Catchin' the Heat of the Beat: First Amendment Analysis of Music Claimed to Incite Violent Behavior; Firestre, Robert; Jones, Kendall T. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 1 (2000).
Spencer certainly got my interest. A brief trip around Google Scholar led me to a number of relevant cases, the earliest of which was an 1883 charge that "rough music" had caused a case of wife beating. A hundred years later, Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest, both heavy metal musicians, were taken to court for causing suicides, the later through what were claimed to be subliminal messages in his songs.
Beatles music was played at the trial of murderer Charles Manson, who insisted that the quartet's White Album contained instructions for him to kill. As I think back, Manson wasn't the only one to claim that a work of art had influenced his violence. John Lennon's murderer blamed The Catcher In The Rye. These are cases where mentally ill defendants misconstrued lyrics as instructional manuals for their crimes. Rather than the prosecution introducing it, the defense used music as mitigating evidence.
When senseless violence occurs, it may simply be human nature to try to find "reasons" for it. Unfortunately, as Spencer showed us, in an adversarial legal system, anything will be used to make a case no matter how stupid or simplistic the argument. Music has always been a particularly easy target as it encapsulates one group's fears about another's: young versus old, black versus white, etc. The larger the gulf between the two groups, the easier it is to manipulate the sense of vulnerability in the face of perceived threats.
It seems to me that the problem here is not music per se but the looseness of rules about what can be introduced at trial. If I had a dollar for every supposed "expert" who testified that they knew what caused a crime, I would be rich indeed. If you are not familiar with the trial of Dan White, who killed Harvey Milk and George Mosconi, the mayor of San Francisco, look it up. You will learn that eating Twinkies caused both homicides.
As was mentioned in class, and very succinctly by Prof. Stein, the use of music in the court room has always served as a proxy for some form of discrimination (class, race, and so forth). I think music is being used to play on racial biases to a certain extent. It should only be used against rappers who openly admit to crimes they committed in their lyrics, not to convict individuals accused of crimes and listening to music to "get in the zone". As far as the context of the music, I think it should definitely put into context by the defense attorney; however, successfully defending lyrics will depend on how incriminating and related to the crime they are. A defense attorney would be hard pressed to defend immortal technique against a charge of rape and murder if he was accused of one similar to the one he describes. Just because he is lyrically gifted, does not make the song any less malicious (if he is truly guilty). In fact, one could argue that disallowing the use of such a blatant confession as evidence in court is an unrealistic hurdle for the police and prosecution. Ethical guidelines should be revised in order to ensure that prosecutorial misconduct is check, but to not allow this form of evidence is absurd.
Hello Everyone,
I do not think the image the artist portrays should be place in the context of court if they or one of their listeners is up for prosecution. As an artist, I believe pushing the bounds of the real to create something creative is a good thing. Many rappers do not always tell the entire “truth “and the stories are a combination of others experience along with the storyteller’s. I believe that if the criminal justice system will prosecute rappers and their listeners for the context of a song, authors need to be up for that prosecution as well. Authors write various accounts of murders, robberies and other crimes, but do not receive a trial because the work is has the label of being fictitious.
Immortal Technique’s song “Dance with the Devil” does not require Immortal Technique’s incarceration for the crimes he describes because it is a form of creative expression. Technique uses powerful, didactic, and forceful words to create a narrative for the enjoyment of people. He speaks in the vernacular to appeal to his audience and help with the understanding of the message. I believe that looking at the lyrics as words to a story can help with the understanding of the song. For example, the symbolism of the devil could represent evil, darkness, and corruption. The notion of dancing can represent a courtship with the power and corruption (devil). I think the criminal justice system uses the label of violent for rappers because the lyrics depict a world that is sinister and dangerous. The problem becomes less about the people and more about the lyrics. I believe words cannot hurt you.
J.T.
Thanks for the post and great class Spencer!
For this blog I want to focus on the first question Spencer has proposed and raise a brief question for Anthony. First, I too believe that, to a certain extent, race does play a role in whose music gets introduced in court. Stereotypes play a large role in how we perceive the world, and as we discussed in class, popular stereotypes will often play a role in whose lyrics we view as more credible “evidence” of crime. Therefore, since there is an inherent racial divide between whose lyrical “confessions” we actually believe and whose we do not, I believe race does play a role in determining whether or not music is brought into court as evidence.
With that being said, I also think class might be a more important indicator. Although we have frequently referenced Johnny Cash and the rappers in the articles we read to discuss the black/white relationship with these court cases, it is important to note that there is also a major difference between Johnny Cash and the rappers in the articles’ socioeconomic status. Johnny Cash is a lot wealthier and a lot higher on our society’s social ladder than the young kids rapping and putting their videos on YouTube. It is because of this that I think it is unfair to place all of the blame for the prosecution of rap music on race. For example, I do not believe 50 Cent was ever investigated or prosecuted for the lyrics we read in class (and even if he was and I am unaware, there are plenty of other rappers, black or white, who have not been). I believe that when an individual ultimately “makes it” as a musician, they are afforded certain privileges, regardless of race, along with their heightened social status, that allows them to rap about crimes in a way that younger musicians simply cannot. Of course, I don’t agree that this is fair or right, but I think this is another factor that we should also take into consideration when we discuss this issue since this is a factor we didn’t discuss much in class.
To Anthony I would like to say the following. You say that music “should only be used against rappers who openly admit to crimes they committed in their lyrics” but what necessarily qualifies as a confession? Although I am not an expert in the area, I imagine that there is some type of formal procedure to file a confession for a crime. Is it then fair to take a person’s right to free speech and artistic expression as a formal confession because law enforcement officials decide that is what the words represent? For example, I would argue that Immortal Technique’s “confession” is just a means of adding credibility to the moral of the song, because if Immortal Technique actually lived the crime he is speaking of, he can be viewed as coming from a more genuine place when advocating for the listeners to “say never” “when the devil wants to dance with [them]” so they do not end up like Billy in the song.
Great class Spencer!
I think that music affects the listener's mood. For example, once upon a time, when I wanted to have sustained energy to do household chores, I used to play calypso or something with a tempo which gave me the energy needed to go all day without even realizing it. Other times, the beat of certain genre of music would cause me to feel sad etc. However, I would not blame the artist for my mood. I was the one who made the conscious choice to listen to that particular genre.
We all have the right to free speech, but as artists and other persons in leadership, mentor positions etc, there is also a duty to be responsible, keeping in mind that there are impressionable people who are listening in and who may regard that artist as a role model and may want to emulate him or her. With great power (or in some cases, recognition), comes great responsibility. I always maintain that the constitution is a double-edged sword.
Concerning Immortal Technique, I cannot say if he should be incarcerated for the lyrics in his song. But he should definitely be investigated for it. If a rape and murder took place in the fashion that he described in his rap, then he might be considered culpable but an thorough investigation is necessary. I would like to point out that he said he was there. A defense attorney might be able to point out that maybe he was hiding unseen at the time of the event but in the interest of self-preservation, he said nothing. Being there does not necessarily mean participation. It might be a stretch, but a plausible one. Incarceration can only come after a thorough, unbiased (if that is possible) investigation.
I honestly believe that race and social standing should have no bearing on the prosecution of a guilty or culpable person. Sadly, we know that that does not really happen.
A couple things in response to these comments (good job, Spencer & Co, for blogging over break!):
Re. Johnny Cash -- the dude was dirt poor before he made it big and even then much of his wealth was squandered in his addiction. But this is not to counter Michael's point about "making it" -- I think he is absolutely right that there are different rules for celebrities in our culture. I would remind everyone that Johnny Cash is famous for his song "Walk the Line," which is a love song but suggests that but for this love he'd flop over the line into a criminal lifestyle. Cash's whole persona (which shades into real parts of his bio) is as a kind of outlaw. The "Man in Black" and that whole thing. He very deliberately connects his "outlaw" status to the rebel who wants to criticize society (to be the voice of the poor, the incarcerated, Native Americans, ignored veterans -- these were the subjects of most of his songs).
As long as we are filling in the gaps of your musical history, this conversation really can't happen without talking about Pete Seeger, who recently died after an incredible career which is a lesson in music, government power, and resistance -- and Pete was a white dude with a banjo who dropped out of Harvard to take his message to the people.
Pete testified before the House of Unamerican Activities Committee (you can find the brilliant testimony here: http://www.peteseeger.net/HUAC.htm, as well as a clip from a newscast summing up his career here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEne5IDCn4Y) In his testimony we see many of the same issues we talked about in class.
But Pete was being criminalized because he was criticizing authority, using his music to popularize ideas about freedom that were threatening to government authority. It goes almost without saying that the criminalizing attitudes towards certain genres of rap have everything to do with race. And I guess that rap lyrics can be seen through the lens of protest music, and that criticizing cops or DAs can be seen as a critique of the criminal justice system as a whole. I am most familiar with Public Enemy and I think that is a very fair characterization of what their music was about. What went without enough saying in seminar was what responsibility rap artists have to their culture. I don't think what they are doing is criminally actionable, but what ARE they doing? Pete Seeger's music was seen as threatening by the government (and this wasn't some slap on the wrist, his music was labelled as unplayable on commercial radio with devastating implications for his career, though he outlived that era) but truly inspiring for his listeners. Are the kinds of rap that we are talking about inspiring to its listeners? And inspiring them to do what?
Spencer, if you know of any rap artists who are engaging such arguments about social responsibility (though I imagine it would look very different from Seeger's folk music), please share!
Great class and blog Spencer!
I think that music brings a unique dynamic that we have to work with and under, especially in regards to the culture of music. Most musicians develop a persona through their music; Beiber, 50 Cent, Snoop Dogg (I'm NOT calling him Lion), Johnny Cash are all completely different people who maintain (or try to change) their image through music.
While watching that clip from the Boondocks, I thought: well, yeah, if Gangstalicious is trying to maintain this 'gangsta' image, why wouldn't he take credit for beating this guy up with a tennis racket and a bottle of Hennessey? It doesn't necessarily mean he did. And this is where my issue with the prosecution of music comes in. At the end of that clip, we see him being hauled away by two policemen because he rapped about the incident. This is the problem. If this is the only "evidence" you have of an alleged crime occurring, you have no evidence.
Also, as my fellow Verons have so beautifully articulated, there is the intersection of gender/class/race at play when speaking about crime, music, and culture. We have to be hyperaware of this because this provides the context upon how certain people are determined to be more "believable" criminals through what they may say in their music.
All in all, I maintain my stance that the use of music in court as evidence is unnecessary and focuses energy and focus on the wrong thing. The music isn't the issue here; the circumstances influencing the music and the perception of said music is the issue, and if we want to address an issue, we don't target the method in which we express the issue, we should target what is actually causing the issue. (Wow, I said 'issue' a lot.)
Much Love!
Hi Everyone! Spencer, thanks for a great class!
I'd like to start off by agreeing with what Michael, Jaraed, and many others have articulated. Contrary to the belief of some, rap is a form of artistic expression, and should be perceived as so. If a painter painted a very detailed portrait of a murder, would he be investigated for a murder case? No, because of the socioeconomic and racial status of most painters, as opposed to most rappers. Race and class undoubtedly play a huge part in the "prosecution of rap," whether it be subconscious or not.
Immortal technique's song was unbelievably powerful. I had chills all over my body. I think a large part of why it was so powerful is because it was narrated from an omniscient or "all-knowing" point of view. This makes the story much more realistic and was effective in expressing the message of the song, to never "dance with the devil." Lyrics that describe criminal acts can be completely factitious, exaggerated, or inspired by a true event. Either way, allowing for the use of lyrics as evidence for prosecution would inhibit the free speech of the artist.
I think the important question to ask here is the same question we have asked in regards to counter-terrorism surveillance: where do we draw the line? If we allow for the use of lyrics as only "secondary" evidence, or only when coupled with a "confession," as some have suggested, what will this do to the artistic expression of rappers? How will we monitor the use of lyrics to *only* these exceptions? What will be the long-term effects on freedom of speech?
I know that if this were more common, we would likely not have music such as that of Immortal Techniques, or my all-time favorite, Lowkey. If it were more widely accepted as evidence, (which I dont think it is except for extremely descriptive lyrics), Lowkey would have undoubtedly been arrested on charges of terrorism, treason, or something along those lines. His song "Obamanation" really portrays how effective he is in his use of rap to encourage social consciousness and justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrOgj7FsyEw
Enjoy the rest of your break, everyone!
Hey all, I apologize that I have been missing in action.
I really enjoyed Spencer’s class!
Professor Stein rightly notes that “anything will be used to make a case no matter how stupid or simplistic the argument.” Indeed. It seems that the CJS is more focused on argumentation rather than truth and as such, it seems that the popular notion of the truth setting one free doesn’t hold in the court room. While we all agree that this prosecution of rap is inappropriate, I want us to consider situations wherein there are elements of truth in incriminating rap lyrics. How should law enforcement respond to such cases? On another note, has anyone seen the movie, The Best Man? Does the writer in that movie deserve the scorn he receives from his close friends simply because his novel conflates both fiction and reality? Should rappers suffer the same plight?
Finally, this is how I responded to your question on Immortal Technique in my journal: Immortal Technique must go to jail, but Felipe Andres Coronel should not.
Thank you, and I hope that you all had an enjoyable break!
See you on Thursday.
Thank you so much for such an insightful and wonderful class Spencer. I apologize for responding so late, I was a away for a conference.
I think "Dance with the devil" is a true masterpiece of poetry. At the end of the fourth verse he says "And listen cause the story that I'm telling is true, 'cause I was there with Billy Jacobs. and I raped his mom too." Obviously, these lyrics are very scary but I started analyzing the word mom in this song. Another interpretation of "mom" (mother)---can be used as a metaphor for society being destroyed by people who conflict pain on members of their own community.
I truly believe that rap is a form of expression, rappers are artist-hybrid poets and musicians. We would never prosecute a painter for murder based on violence he/she depicts on his/her canvas, or a novelist for writing about violence. Rap may be not non-fiction- it is the creation of an alter-ego, playing with fantasy, the invention of an alternate world or universe.
Spencer, your class was great! I apologize for jumping in super late...
In reference to Immortal Technique's "Dancing with the Devil", having heard it several times before, I have always viewed it as a poetic piece. I do not think he should be incarcerated for the crime he discusses in the song. As I stated in class, unless there is concrete evidence of his involvement in the crime he discusses in his song, his lyrics should not be used against him. In comparison to 50 Cent, I think we must not generalize the rapper population and believe they are all the same (i.e. desires, needs, character). As with Immortal Technique, unless there is other evidence showing a crime took place and these rappers played a role in it, their lyrics should not be used in court.
Post a Comment