Is Outlaw Country That Different from Gangster Rap?

stretchl

The Supreme Court May decide-

“Outlaw country music is given much more poetic license than gangster rap, and I listen to both,” he said. “And I can tell you that the lyrics are dark and brutal when Johnny Cash describes shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die and when Ice Cube rapped about a drive-by shooting early in his career.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-rap-music.html#click=https://t.co/pLWynIhkC2

nooshinjohn

Two entirely different genres....

tonyb

The difference is one is describing an event, a crime already committed. The other is a threat to a government official.

Much of Rap, and I hate to broad brush it because to me the best Rap was from the originals like Run DMC, is a cat call to rise up and create chaos. Outlaw country, while it seems to glorify, is really describing the mistakes they made in their own lives. They don't make threats to others.

Just my opinion there.

nooshinjohn

If outlaw country had a song using vulgarities to describe inner city life and spoke of going there to commit violence, the NAACP would rightly be all over it, but a rapper actually produces material that does exactly that and gets a pass.... that is the real double standard IMhO. Kid Rock gets chastised for a stars & bars flag at his concerts. Can you imagine if he performed songs like the gangster rappers do?

rooftop59

Implicit bias is a ****.

nooshinjohn

Yep... this thread isn’t going to end well....

rooftop59

Confirmation bias is worse. Whatever you believe about this issue, you will just twist the facts to fit your prior beliefs (unconsciously...you don’t think that’s what you’re doing). Tons of evidence from social and moral psychology here...

decal

More gov't silliness !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tonyb

While confirmation bias is a real thing, I think all too often it gets whipped out to derail certain truths.

There's the truth and then there's opinion, we have a real hard time distinguishing between the 2 as a society.

That may derail the thread though, but the main topic is about the Supreme court deciding if so called "artist" have enough freedom of speech as to make threats against government officials, or anyone else for that matter.

Do any of us non artist have the ability to make threats without consequences ? Being an artist should not grant you anymore rights than anyone else, right ? Aren't we all suppose to be "equal under the law" ? In theory anyway. Even that assumption can get too political.

Clipdat

The real answer to the question in this thread title is "who gives a ****?"

rooftop59

Why are you the arbiter of Truth, Tony? We are all deeply biased, as revealed by many comments on this thread. But some have been trained to sniff it out better than others.

As for this case, I agree that it's a very tough issue. We can either go with the most liberal notion of free speech - which I will attribute to @steveinaz - which states that NOTHING can be said that violates free speech. This is the consistent libertarian approach. Sticks and stones and all that. My speech cannot DIRECTLY cause you harm, and a liberal society should protect personal freedom above all else so long as it does not result in the infringement upon another's freedom. This is the foundational principle of liberalism, a free and open society.

On the other hand, there is a narrower, more conservative view of free speech. On this view, violent hate speech often inspires violent actions. So, your personal freedom actually DOES cause harm to other people, and again, the first principle of liberalism states that personal freedom is protected until it infringes on another's freedom, and causing harm is a prime example of the latter.

The first view assumes that we as individuals are the primary or only cause of our actions. The second view assumes that larger social forces have coercive power over the individual. Its actually a rather vexed philosophical and sociological debate, not just an issue for political theory...

tonyb

To me anyway, the crux of the matter is this....

All too many times we hear "artists" claim they have unlimited freedom to express whatever they want in whatever manner they choose. Not far from the truth in reality, except when your expressions seek to do harm to others or encourage others to do the same.

For me, it will be interesting to see how the SC rules on this. Mainly because it's not just Rap artists expressing thoughts of doing harm to others. Not just Rap artists encouraging others to rise up and revolt, to use violence when necessary.

You see that from politicians, to celebs, in colleges, even on news channels. You see it in print in magazines from journalists, on social media, on signs from protesters.

So to me, Rap artists are being used as a fall guy, in a society today that accepts this behavior. If we are to say Rap artists cannot use verbiage in such a manner, then we must also require everyone else to do the same.

Equality and all that, right ?

nooshinjohn

Then there is the other side of speech, which says this is Polk’s forum, and if you guys want to keep it, this conversation should take place somewhere else...

Emlyn

The way I understand the case, the type of music was not relevant to the ruling to jail a person for making death threats but the imprisoned fellow's lawyers are claiming it should matter so they can get him sprung from jail. Putting out a direct threat or encouragement of violence and murder by naming real life individual law enforcement officers (or any other real life person) is never a good idea, regardless of the medium.

Regarding gangster rap and outlaw country, I find one usually sounds angry and the other usually sounds utterly depressing. The legal argument comparing the two is childish and goes something like "Yeah, well he did it first!"

tonyb

True John, this can dive into the political realm quickly, of which I already dipped the toes into.

I'd ask a Mod to delete the thread...but we don't have one.

Lucy....calling Lucy....time to wake up and do your job.

stretchl

The problem I have with the case, and why I hope the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the defendant, is this, from a 1971 opinion by justice Harlan Marshall: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2011/03/08/5-favorite-first-amendment-passages/

“...one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”

Having the guvment placing restrictions on free speech based on what they think someone means is a very, very dangerous and slippery slope.

nooshinjohn

Shouting fire in a crowded theater or Bomb on an airplane... can’t say those things either. You cannot threaten others lives or place lives in danger with your speech. That is the line where speech becomes a threat, and threats are not protected, and those making them need to be held responsible regardless of their form.

motorhead43026

Many people are just now regretting the rights to privacy that were given up after 9/11. Be careful what you are giving up as far as free speech. The outcome could be the same as privacy.

Lets not burn down the whole house to kill one bedbug.

PS.
We now live in a world were a presidential candidate can incite bodily harm and get away with such, on tv at that.

gudnoyez

https://youtu.be/imInZJIW-f4
Love me some Outlaw Country.

WLDock

Here is the point that all should agree on about violence in this Country.

America has an angry, ugly, and violent past. Through the ages a culture of violence can be found in movies, music, television, video games, etc.

What people originally didn't understand about certain types of rap music is that many artist were simply street reporters. Rap music to them was used as an outlet to express the very bad condition and negative forces in their communities.

Through it all there was and still is a ton of positive, uplifting, socially conscious, protest, and political rap out in the universe. However, America supports all rap but keeps buying violent music in general. There is violence and lyrics that degrade women in all genres of music. Pop, Country, Alternative, Rock, Hip-Hop, R&B, etc. Still rap is making a ton of money and leading the streaming world.

There can be no open discussion if all are not looking at the big picture...

America created these genres!

daddyjt

WLDock wrote: »

Here is the point that all should agree on about violence in **THE WORLD**.

**HUMANS HAVE** an angry, ugly, and violent past. Through the ages a culture of violence can be found in movies, music, television, video games, etc.

Fixed it.

HUMANS ARE MESSY.

If you don’t like the song/show/game, change the channel and move on with your life.

nooshinjohn

FWIW... Gangster Rap has more in common with death-punk than it does with outlaw country...

tonyb

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Shouting fire in a crowded theater or Bomb on an airplane... can’t say those things either. You cannot threaten others lives or place lives in danger with your speech. That is the line where speech becomes a threat, and threats are not protected, and those making them need to be held responsible regardless of their form.

I would agree. Free speech...still has it's limits. Encouraging violence or inciting it, is way different than simply commenting/reflecting on it through art form.

Nobody is giving up anything that already hasn't been. Society still demands a certain decorum in public speech and actions. Whether or not we follow it is another story. I would suggest for the sake of keeping society at a decent level, we follow some of the presets we already instilled for public decorum. Nothing good would come about if we didn't maintain a certain level of decency.

We can simply this for better clarity. If you or I were to make a threat against a public official, would that be a crime ? Should that be a crime ??

If yes, then artists must be held to the same scrutiny. If no, you open the flood gates of inciting violence and one should not complain if some day it reaches your doorstep.

WLDock

...A level of decency. Someone should tell that to the President. His behavior at his rallies was deplorable.

nooshinjohn

That would be discussing politics on the forum, which is forbidden ground. If you guys really want to get this forum closed, keep doing it. We have NO moderator to clean your mess after you, which means all they need to do is have a reason pull the plug.

Please stop.

WLDock

OK, I'm up for open discussion and I promote civility however this post was against the rules from the start. Here in 2019 if you are talking Supreme Court then you are talking politics! We don't need a moderator to see this. Sorry for playing along.

It was done before it started...

daddyjt

WLDock wrote: »

...A level of decency. Someone should tell that to the President. His behavior at his rallies was deplorable.

Sith_Lord

Let me be perfectly clear on this matter. The forum has rules that must be followed. This thread is in defiance of those rules. Those that feel they can violate the rules because moderation is lacking will be disappointed when they find themselves on the outside looking in.

I hope I don't need to be more clear than that.

motorhead43026

BlueFox

What is Outlaw Country? Country seems to lag rock by 10-20 years in their style, so I guess it is around The Beastie Boys time.

stretchl

I am the OP despite what the thread evolved into I cannot see its original premise as political. It’s not about a guns or abortion case in front of the SC. It’s about music. That’s why we’re all here. FWIW.