R. Kelly, the R&B singer known for his outlandish, sometimes criminal behavior, is again embroiled in controversy. On Monday, BuzzFeed News reported that the 50-year-old is manipulating a group of young women, controlling everyday aspects of their lives as they stay at one of his properties, apparently by their own free will.

The report features testimony from the parents of some of these women, as well as three former members of Kelly’s entourage who corroborated the details. After luring young, attractive women into his inner circle by inviting them backstage and flying them out to concerts, Kelly would convince them to live in one of his properties in Atlanta or Chicago.

“Puppet Master”

According to the report, Kelly “controls every aspect of their lives: dictating what they eat, how they dress, when they bathe, when they sleep, and how they engage in sexual encounters that he records.” 

The famous artist, who recorded “I Believe I Can Fly” for the Space Jam soundtrack, purportedly uses his lavish lifestyle to attract women before using his verbal skills to convince them to stay with him, according to Cheryl Mack, Kelly’s former personal assistant.

“[Kelly] is a master at mind control. … He is a puppet master,” Mack told BuzzFeed.

One issue with police intervention is that the law allows consenting adults to participate in any relationship they wish, even when it is nontraditional. So when police in Illinois and Georgia performed welfare checks over the past year, no charges were filed. Instead, one 19-year-old aspiring singer staying at Kelly’s mansion in Atlanta, told authorities that she was “fine and did not want to be bothered.”

Some of the parents have spoken with FBI detectives but the bureau could not comment on the investigation to the public.

Mack, along with other former entourage members, said they wish they had documentation to prove their claims. They said Kelly controlled their cell phone usage and barred them from taking pictures of him or his homes. Kelly reportedly has the women call him “Daddy” while he calls them “babies.” He also has them request permission to contact other people besides himself.

For example, the parents of the 19-year-old singer, who last saw their daughter on Dec. 1, 2016, have only received two texts from their daughter since then. The first, sent on Christmas Day said, “I hate Christmas has to be this way this year.” The other came on Mother’s Day: “Happy Mother’s Day from me and Rob,” it said, referring to Kelly’s given name of Robert.

Kelly’s lawyer, Linda Mensch, defended her client’s actions and asked for privacy when BuzzFeed approached her with the allegations. In an email to BuzzFeed, she wrote:

We can only wonder why folks would persist in defaming a great artist who loves his fans, works 24/7, and takes care of all of the people in his life. He works hard to become the best person and artist he can be. It is interesting that stories and tales debunked many years ago turn up when his goal is to stop the violence; put down the guns; and embrace peace and love. I suppose that is the price of fame. Like all of us, Mr. Kelly deserves a personal life. Please respect that.

Criminal Past

Kelly is no stranger to criminal activity and sexual misconduct. In addition to being charged with assault and battery multiple times, Kelly has been accused of sexual relations with underage girls. He settled a dozen or more cases outside of court.

Here is one example of his clear indifference to age-related consent laws:

R Kelly said this but we still bumped “I Believe I Can Fly” at every Kindergarten graduation

pic.twitter.com/O9hlzbmclc

— (@Dr_Sweets23) July 17, 2017

Kelly is perhaps most infamous for a 2002 video which featured him having sex with, and urinating on, an underage girl. During a raid on his property, police found images of the girl on a camera hidden inside Kelly’s duffle bag. Since those images were ruled ineligible in court, Kelly was ultimately found not guilty on 14 child pornography charges. But the stain on his fame and public perception has never disappeared.

And while it’s not criminal, Kelly created the 33-part, 133-minute music video series titled “Trapped in the Closet,” which features a cheating husband, a bisexual pastor, and plenty of gun violence.

“Robert is the Devil”

According to Kelly’s former partners, the women staying at Kelly’s home, or in his Chicago recording studio last summer, include a songwriter, a singer, and a model. There is also a woman known as the “den mother” who teaches newcomers “how Kelly liked to be pleasured sexually,” according to BuzzFeed. All of the women are between the ages of 18 to 31.

Kelly reportedly keeps a black SUV stationed outside each of his properties with a “burly driver” to keep a watchful eye. This is just part of the psychological warfare Kelly wages against his “babies.”

Kelly makes the women wear jogging suits to minimize their attractiveness to other men, Mack said. If the women break one of his rules, Kelly is known to physically and emotionally abuse the women, according to Mack and fellow insider Kitti Jones. Jones said Kelly once pushed her against a tree and slapped her after she was too friendly with a male cashier at a Subway sandwich shop.

“R. Kelly is the sweetest person you will ever want to meet,” Asante McGee, another former Kelly insider said. “But Robert is the devil.”

Kelly wasn’t perceived positively by the public even before this report, but these allegations carry new weight. Every few years Kelly seems to get himself into legal trouble, so this is no surprise, but it is a horrifying portrait of a formerly well-liked artist.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post R. Kelly is Reportedly Controlling a “Cult” of Young Women appeared first on Law Street.

Should all online threats lead to time in prison? According to the Supreme Court, simply reporting a threat posted by someone on the internet is no longer enough to put them in jail, as the Supreme Court just overturned the 2011 conviction of Anthony Elonis. A Pennsylvania native, Elonis was sentenced to jail after posting multiple threats toward his wife, co-workers, and elementary schools in the form of lyrics on Facebook. He claimed to use these posts as therapeutic methods to cope with his depression. However, due to their violent nature, he was convicted for violating a federal threat statute. Elonis appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing that the government should have been required to prove he truly had an intent to act on these threats before sentencing him to a 44 month term in jail. That argument convinced the Supreme Court–but what does it mean for online communication moving forward?

With this ruling, the Supreme Court says courts must consider the defendant’s state of mind and whether he intended to actually do wrong. This simply means that there must be some proof that the defendant intended to follow through on what he was posting. The court gave a 7-2 opinion but did not set a clear standard for what constitutes this intent to act out these threats. There are questions of whether this will potentially create uncertainties during future trials. In fact, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. believe that this opinion is more confusing than enlightening. Thomas wrote, “This failure to decide throws everyone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty.”

This is a very tricky case with two sides to it. Something that is posted online may very well be taken out of context, but there is also a good chance that someone who has intent to cause harm to others will not be seen as guilty in a courtroom due to the lack of proof. Michele M. Garcia, director of the Stalker Resource Center, stated,

This decision fails to recognize that victims of stalking experience fear regardless of the offender’s intent. If what constitutes a threat is not clearly defined, our concern is that this ruling provides enormous space for stalkers and abusers to act.

Mai Fernandez, executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, described the internet as “the crime scene of the 21st century. Kim Gandy, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, stated,

Threats play a central role in domestic abuse and is a core tactic that many abusers employ, regardless of whether the abuser intended to threaten or only intended to vent or to make a joke.

I can’t help but wonder if this decision will help people who do plan to harm others avoid prison?  There is a big concern that this will let internet abusers get around the law by writing hateful posts that “technically” are not threats but are still frightening to others. This decision may make it much more difficult to prosecute those whose posts are a precursor to violence that is going to take place. Only time will tell if this decision by the Supreme Court was beneficial or harmful for those dealing with internet threats.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anthony Elonis’s Conviction Overturned: Are Online Threats Now Fair Game? appeared first on Law Street.

Is this real life? HLN viewers were gifted TV comedic gold the other night in the form of a marijuana debate between the always controversial Nancy Grace and “Fed Watching” rapper 2 Chainz. Grace, whose Wikipedia controversy section alone is cause enough for pause, brought 2 Chainz, who was arrested in 2013 for possessing a weed grinder, on her show to discuss the legalization of marijuana. Funnily enough, it was 2 Chainz who upstaged Grace with actual valid points while she rebutted by showing him irrelevant videos of parents forcing toddlers to smoke pot.

Watch a clip from interview below, and here’s the long version if you want to see it.

For those of you who don’t have time to watch the entire interview, it went a little something like this.

Grace: Was clearly surprised that the weed smoking rapper was capable of graduating college with a 4.0 despite presumably being in a constant purple haze.

2 Chainz: Argues you can’t blame the entire “stoners” community for a few irresponsible parents forcing kids to smoke pot. (Sounds fair.)

Grace: Doesn’t want to be thrown into a pot and stewed. (Okaaaay?)

Grace: “While I have you, why the 2 Chainz?” (She’s getting to the really hard hitting questions now.)

2 Chainz: Explains why his breastfed youth gave way to the family nickname and former rap name Tity Boi.

Grace: Awkwardly quotes 2 Chainz lyrics in the whiniest voice possible.

2 Chainz: Argues in defense of keeping weed out of a child’s hands; feels everyone has the ability to govern their own household and have structure.

Grace: “I hear you. I hear you 2 Chainz. I hear you.” (Do you though?) Quickly shows yet another parent-forcing-baby to smoke video to further prove point.

2 Chainz: Thinks said parent is a bone head and may have mental issues deeper than a joint. (You tell her, 2 Chainz.)

Grace: Implies that if pot is legalized, unlimited access for child-abusing pot heads will bring about the end of the world.

2 Chainz: Informs Nancy that everyone already has the ability to get their hands on pot whether it’s legal or not. Argues legalization will minimize overcrowding in prisons and will help users be able to obtain loans, homes, and jobs.

Grace: “If you want to qualify for a home, why don’t you just not smoke pot! Why don’t you just not get arrested!” (I don’t think they wanted to get arrested.)

2 Chainz:  Sees legalization as a means to curb the national deficit and free up taxpayers’ money that can be better spent on potholes than pot smokers. Tells tour bus grinder arrest story, the charges of which were later dropped, and schools Grace on what a waste of taxpayers’ money it was.

Grace: Doesn’t disagree. Shows yet another baby smoking pot video. “Look. Look. Look. Look. Look. Look.” (Really, he’s looking.)

2 Chainz: “This kid may need marijuana when he’s about 16 because he may have some other things going on.” (Grace doesn’t know what he’s talking about.)

Grace: Demands to know why 2 Chainz doesn’t want his kids to sell pot like him. Shows yet another kid smoking pot video.

2 Chainz: Educates Grace on pawn shops and crack. Thinks the parent in video was high on crack. Wants to call the dude up and find out. Questions if it was even him or maybe a babysitter, an uncle, or a brother. (Creates reasonable doubt.)

Grace: Wants him to know she has a problem with his lyrics “Smoking California weed with California whores.”

2 Chainz: Truuuuuuuuuuuu.

 Obviously Twitter found the whole thing hilarious, including Grace’s ridiculous hashtag: #pot2blame.

NANCY GRACE: Why do you breastfeed your children marijuana? 2 CHAINZ: What? GRACE: Hey what is a 2 Chain? 2 CHAINZ: Well– GRACE: No. Wrong.

— Dan Ozzi (@danozzi) January 14, 2015

Nancy Grace: “Smokin California weed with California hoez.” 2 Chainz: “TRUUUUUU” This seriously happened on national television.

— Demetrius (@fergoe) January 14, 2015

This is beautiful. I would watch a 24-hour network of just Nancy Grace/2 Chainz. http://t.co/EEMXtCJJc6 pic.twitter.com/9xuSmIty80 — Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) January 14, 2015

thanks to @NancyGraceHLN ive finally realized that #pot2blame for all my problems. dunno how it took me so long

— Nadeska Alexis (@neweryork) January 14, 2015

Having @NancyGraceHLN on in the home regularly might be more detrimental to a childs brain development than pot legalization. #Pot2Blame?

— Mike Groseclose (@mikrofusion) January 14, 2015

Is another debate in the works? We should only be so lucky. Both 2 Chainz and Grace gave fans hope on Twitter, showing there’s no bad blood between the two.

.@2chainz you’re on. I’m gonna talk u out of this pot thing. Ps. I don’t think that’s a real rolex u have on. #Pot2Blame?

— Nancy Grace (@NancyGraceHLN) January 14, 2015

After the recent legalization of marijuana in Oregon and Alaska, and the vote to legalize it in Washington D.C., the country’s opinion on marijuana has started to turn a corner. It’s the crackpots like Grace, with their ultra-conservative babble and highly irrelevant baby smoking videos, that are only delaying the inevitable. Until people are willing to accept the facts on marijuana, myths and paranoia will remain supreme.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2 Chainz vs. Nancy Grace: Rapper Wins Debate Over Legalizing Pot appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of speech is one of our rights in the United States, and it is guaranteed by the First Amendment. So it is hard to believe that something like social media that a majority of us use every day, could be the exception to the rule that we can say what we want to say without fear of backlash. In general, there are exceptions that prevent hate speech, defamation, and threats. Some of these aren’t legal, just frowned upon by the society at large, while others can get someone in trouble. Social media sites allow for the spread of all types of speech, from spoken word pieces on sites like YouTube, to shorter phrases said in 140 characters on Twitter. The publication of negative speech has some positive and negative consequences. We’ve seen them play out in the last few years with events in Ferguson, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and every major election.

It is difficult, however, to choose which pieces of speech are worthy of protection from action and which can be used against someone in legal proceedings. Not everything said on social media can be taken at face value. What one person deems as offensive and disturbing may incite a different emotion in another person. Striking a balance between unfiltered free speech, political correctness, and censorship is difficult. Censoring what is allowed on social media may seem like it goes against our Constitutional Rights, but allowing a free-for-all on speech can lead to threats, bullying, and hate speech.

Social Media’s Impact

Speech is not, nor has it ever been, a completely good vs. evil situation. There is so much more behind a string of text than just the literal meaning of the words. This is what makes it so difficult to decide who and what has a right to be on social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr. Some countries, like North Korea, Iran, China, Pakistan, and Turkey, have completely blocked their citizens’ access to social media sites as a way to ward off the problem. They operate under the theory that if you take away the cause, you won’t have to worry about it.

Many websites and apps do have “report” features so that a user can alert the webmasters that something has gone wrong. This begs the question, if someone says something terrible on social media, and it is reported but nothing happens, who is responsible for the fall out? It’s an increasingly important topic across the world; this isn’t just limited to the United States.

City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon, et al

In 2009, the Supreme Court of California heard a case that discussed the rights to free speech in text messaging between employees. Employees of the City of Ontario, California filed a claim in district court against the police department, city, chief of police, and an internal affairs officer. They believed that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when their text messages on city-issued pagers were reviewed. The city did not have a text-messaging policy; however, it did have a general “Computer Usage, Internet, and E-mail” policy. Those employees felt as if that particular section did not cover their pagers. The court held that the city employees had a right to privacy in their text messages because there was no specific language about text messaging in the city’s policy.

This, along with several other cases about Cloud privacy has prompted many to ask the question: are Supreme Court justices too out of the loop to fully understand the severity of the problem? Most–though admittedly not all–Justices don’t interact with social media to a great extent. Perhaps one or two may have a Twitter account, but those are often controlled by members of their team. President Obama, who is largely considered more modern with technology, is the first sitting President to have a Twitter account, but there are questions about just who actually runs it.

 Anthony Elonis v. United States

This case concerns a Pennsylvania man, Anthony Elonis, and his post of violence-filled rap lyrics aimed toward his ex-wife. He didn’t use his own name, but rather the pseudonym Tone Dougie. His rap suggested that he should use his wife’s “head on a stick” in his Halloween costume. He used images that haunt the public mind, saying that he was going to terrorize a school as “Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.” Some of the other lyrics were extremely troubling:

There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts. Hurry up and die, bitch, so I can bust this nut all over your corpse from atop your shallow grave. I used to be a nice guy but then you became a slut.

He also rapped about killing federal agents. Tara Elonis, his ex-wife, felt threatened by the song. The court had to judge “whether the threatening speaker intended to harm anyone or whether the listener was genuinely afraid of being harmed.” Nancy Leong pointed out in the Huffington Post that, “because the Internet filters out voice and demeanor cues, online statements provide less information about the seriousness of the statement, and are thus more likely to be reasonably interpreted as threats.“

Elonis didn’t seem to be too upset at first, posting on Facebook: “Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife? It’s illegal. It’s indirect criminal contempt … I also found out it’s incredibly illegal, extremely illegal, to go on Facebook and say something like the best place to fire a mortar launcher at her house would be the cornfield behind it …”

The case is ongoing and it has incited intense emotions from both sides of the fence.

The Good

What are the benefits of having freedom of expression on social media? Surely, it is a way for some people to vent their anger without feeling self-conscious, nervous, or upset without resorting to violent actions. Everyone has a right to say what they think. We’ll never know, thankfully, if Elonis would have followed through on the threats in his rap.

Retweets, liking, or even posting your own status can be as effective as screaming at the top of your lungs at a protest. Lately, Facebook has been full of posts that educated everyone on topics relating to racism and the plight of African Americans in modern day America. There are always a few feminist pieces floating around. LGBTQ statuses, articles, and debate appear often, as well. Looking into the comments of these pieces, it is easy to see a cross section of what people believe about the topic. After all, the best way to argue for something is to know why people are arguing against it.

Social media has also become a home to those people who post positive things about topics from body-positive Instagram campaigns to equal media representation groups on Tumblr.

The Bad

To quote Uncle Ben from Spiderman: With great power, comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, many people do not understand their responsibility to fellow man. People who don’t believe in the status quo (or those who believe in the previous status quo that is now shifting to another) can stir up some pretty harsh feelings. People have the right to believe whatever they want, but these more extreme views on politics, racism, sexism, and homosexuality can start verbal sparring matches that help no one.

People have been using social media to post threats that haven’t been taken seriously for years. Stricter online controls would help alert the authorities in some cases, and even protect the innocent. Social media can be used for internet bullying, which in some cases is worse than the traditional verbal bullying. Online gossiping and social media platforms allow the bullying to continually exist–a problem for both the bully and the bullied.

Conclusion

Social media is one of the best inventions of the last century. It allows us to stay in contact with people we would have left behind, and it allows us to preserve our memories in a time capsule. However, it can also make or break a person depending on how someone reacts. Truthfully, the problem isn’t a freedom of speech issue, but rather one of morality. Can we take morals and apply them to the virtual world?

Resources

Primary

Supreme Court: City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon et al

Constitution: First Amendment

Constitution: Fourth Amendment

Additional

Slate: Are Facebook Threats Real?

Huffington Post: Constitutional Rights in the Digital Age

The New York Times: Do Online Death Threats Count as Free Speech?

Salon: The Supreme Court’s baffling tech illiteracy is becoming a problem

Business Insider: This Guy’s Facebook Rants Put Him In Prison, And The Supreme Court Will Hear His Case Today

Truth Out: This Time, “Free Speech” Cannot Prevail

ABA: United States v. Anthony Elonis – Third Circuit

Index on Censorship: 10 Countries that have Social Media Banned

The New York Times: Chief Justice Samples Eminem in Online Threats Case

First Amendment Center: Social Networking

Bloomberg: The 8 Most Important Cases in the New Supreme Court Term

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Freedom of Speech and Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

So let me drop a lyric: “I meet aggression with aggression, I learned that on the streets” by 50 Cent. What does this lyric conjure?

Let us all admit that when we hear rap lyrics like this one, not all of us automatically get a warm fuzzy feeling in our hearts. In fact, many rappers are criticized for producing overly aggressive lyrics about controversial topics; the objectification of women; and violent threats towards individuals who have wronged them. Most of us consider the lyrics of rappers to be more of a style choice — the way in which they want to market themselves to their prospective audience rather than an autobiographical representation. But now a question: Have you ever considered the rap lyrics coming through your headphones to be a confession to a crime? The United States Court System has.

In the past several years, rap lyrics have been used against the accused as evidence to support their criminal actions. In 2013, it was found by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey that in 18 cases, rap lyrics were considered as possible evidence and were used in trial 80 percent of the time. When these rap lyrics are shared in court, it can be detrimental to the accused. 

A study conducted in the late 1990s explored if rap lyrics used during a trial swayed jurors’ opinions. Participants were given basic biographical information about a hypothetical 18-year-old black male, and some were shown a set of his explicit rap lyrics. Those who read the lyrics were significantly more likely to believe that the hypothetical accused would have committed a violent crime.

This bias regarding artists who express themselves through rap lyrics has repeatedly displayed itself in court, stirring debate as to whether these lyrics should be used as a form of evidence.  It is doubtful that when Vonte Skinner first wrote the lyrics, “Look in my palms. You can see what I’m gunnin with,” he would foresee their use against him in court. However, Skinner was placed on trial in 2008 for possible involvement in the shooting of Lamont Peterson in 2005. Skinner, also known by his rap name Threat, was found guilty after the prosecution read 13 pages of his violent lyrics — similar to those mentioned above. It is speculated that these lyrics have contributed to the charge and conviction against Vonte for attempted murder. This conviction was later overturned on appeal, and will be officially decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court in March.

This case presents the idea that rap lyrics can be used to misrepresent the accused as a horrible or violent person. In reality, Skinner’s lyrics were written long before the shooting and subsequent paralysis of Lamont. In fact, the lyrics did not mention the victim or even specific details regarding the crime. Thus, lyrics can be used when minimal evidence is available, in order to turn the tides of a case. This exact situation occurred again when Los Angeles rapper Lil Boosie was accused of paying a hit man, Mike Loudon to shoot and kill Terry Boyd in 2009. With no physical evidence linking Boosie to the crime, prosecutors built their case around his rap lyrics. Despite the objections of the defense attorney, prosecutors went ahead and presented lyrics from songs such as “Bodybag,” claiming it was a representation of evidence to tie Boosie to the murder. Luckily, the jurors were not convinced by the lyrics. While Lil Boosie escaped conviction and Vonte Skinner will have a second chance through the Supreme Court, the issue becomes whether courts should be allowed to utilize rap lyrics as evidence.

Many believe that this “alternative form of evidence” should not be considered evidence at all. As a genre, rap is a form of entertainment, one that uses exaggerative and figurative language. Often rappers use lyrics as a form of artistic expression and this is how we should view them. Instead of taking rap for what it is — an art form — prosecutors present the lyrics of rappers as an autobiographical expression or admission to illegal behavior. Defense attorneys often object to the use of lyrics, as courts typically do not allow the presentation of evidence meant to damage a defendant when it is not directly related to a crime. However, the presiding judge over a case has the ultimate decision and rap seems to have become an exception, as many judges have allowed the use of rap in court.

Then why do rap lyrics keep presenting themselves in court? The rap industry has become synonymous with criminality, as more and more artists are going on trial and lyrics become more explicit. To this extent, it is less than surprising that musicians find their own lyrics used against them. However, the courts should find stronger evidence to tie an accused to the crime rather than obscure lyrics taken out of context. Why would anyone willingly incriminate themselves? Clearly, just because a lyric is violent, does not mean it is a confession to illegal activity. The hearing of Skinner’s case in the Supreme Court can turn the tides for rappers, and possibly end the use of lyrics as evidence in trial.

[New York Times] [North Carolina Criminal Law] [The Roott]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Susanne Davidson via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Rap Lyrics Represent an Admission of Guilt? appeared first on Law Street.

This post is not about Kanye West but the title was inspired by him. The title, I think, can forevermore be used as a turn of phrase that attempts to express all the rage, exasperation, and downright frustration experienced by young Black men in America. Kanye used it to reference his experience of celebrity — how he felt trapped in a cage, with insensitive, often antagonistic, onlookers. The paparazzi often “tap on the glass” of his cage merely to elicit a reaction. His response to this madness? The admonition: IT’S NOT SAFE FOR YOU IN THIS ZOO.

Well, I don’t want to use this phrase to qualify my experience as a Black man. I’ve had pretty easy sailing most of my life. My family was working class, but I always had food on the table and a roof over my head. I never got into much trouble, and none of my childhood friends were involved in gang violence. However, that’s more than the urban youth of Chicago can say. Those Black and minority boys are portrayed in the media as nearly subhuman. They are demonized and vilified to the point where some cease to care if they continue the violence that has plagued Chicago recently. I’d argue that there is more to the story.

News about the urban violence in Chicago is inescapable. It’s almost a given that Chicago is synonymous with gun violence these days. There is news of raising minimum sentences for repeat offenders who are involved in violent crimes using guns and would require the person to serve no less than 85% of the sentence imposed. I could spend an entire post chronicling the problems with mandatory minimum sentences, but this most recent proposal seems somewhat tempered by a provision that does not compel the minimum sentence for a first-time offender. But will punishing offenders more harshly really act as a deterrent?

Many people’s image of Chicago is influenced by the popular culture. And no, I don’t mean the movie “The Untouchables” or that “Chicago Fire” show full of dusty white men in Fireman’s uniforms. What I mean is the image of Chicago, and Chicago’s Black youth, as exemplified by everyone’s favorite walking, talking dustball, Chief Keef. If you don’t know Mr. Keef, as he is hilariously referred to in some news articles, allow me to introduce him.

Okay so that’s not Chief Keef, but it’s a close representation of the young man. Here’s what he really looks like:

Chief Keef, born Keith Cozart, was born in the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago’s now-infamous South Side. Without deriding this young fellow, who happens to be only 18, his music and his media image are indicative of the almost rabidly violent frustrations of the Black youth in Chicago. He has an infant child. He’s had trouble with the law. In 2011, he was apprehended on charges of heroine manufacture. [I couldn’t possibly tell you how to manufacture heroine but then again, I guess you could Google it.] When he once left his home with a jacket covering his hands, and an officer stopped to question him, Mr. Keef (see how silly that sounds?) flashed the gun he was concealing at the officer and then ran away. The officer chased while Keef repeatedly turned around and pointed the gun at the officer. The officer discharged his weapon but never struck the rapper. Keef was eventually sentenced to home confinement.

His music is violent. His image is dangerous. But does that really represent the kid? I don’t think so. I think the rapper is representative of a Black youth culture in poorer parts of Chicago that simply doesn’t see a way out of their circumstances. Kanye once asked “what the summer of the Chi’ got to offer an 18-year-old?” Perhaps quite little. But I also don’t think it isn’t fare to scapegoat much of the violence in inner-city Chicago on a populace that is often caught in the same pressures that lead many others, of all races, to lash out with antisocial behavior. But I think the media portrayal of the city and its ills is almost a self-fulfilling narrative.

My point is that when you treat a group of people like animals, when you dehumanize them and talk about them as if they are a collage of violence, drug use, abuse, and distribution, they are bound to begin thinking that’s the only way to identify themselves. But you know what also happens? Sometimes the animals bite back. Sometimes the very societal pressures they struggle under become too much and they erupt. And I guess that was the point Kanye was making when he said “It’s not safe for you in this zoo.” The very idea of a zoo creates a false sense of calm created by the feeling of control the people have over the animals. We begin to believe that these creatures are at our beck and call. We become complacent with the environment in which we have placed these creatures without thought to the stressors we have put them under. And then someone gets hurt, and we wonder why.

Don’t get me wrong, however. Urban violence is not explained away by someone’s lack of social mobility. But neither is it a symptom of some incurable, violent rage that a subset of Chicago’s youth population has. It is more complex. Chicago is just an extreme example, but similar feelings of frustration erupt in towns all across this country. So lest the media fool you into thinking urban violence is exclusively in Chicago, peer out your window and examine the surroundings in your city. Recognize that when you dehumanize a culture you don’t understand, it might not be safe for you in that zoo.

—

Featured image courtesy of [ClaireUS via Flickr]

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Not Safe for You in This Zoo appeared first on Law Street.