California has become the first state to restrict the use of creative expression in a criminal proceeding, and artists and free speech advocates are hoping that more states and the federal government will follow suit.
This is to protect pedophiles
Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed California Assembly Bill 2098, making it the first state to attempt to censor what physicians can say about COVID-19 to their patients.
If dickheads confess to their depredations in their shitty "lyrics," why not use it against them in court?
How is it different from, "Dear diary: Today I robbed and beat an old Chinese man half to death because he looked at me sideways. It's good to be a gangster"?
The usual assholes are of course moaning about "racism" because evidently no white rapper has ever narrated his crimes in lyrics.
I don't see what this has to do with "state's rights."
The argument is that most art is not autobiographical. People don't write slasher movies because they're secretly serial killers; they do it because it's a popular genre that can be made on a budget, and they would argue that the same could be true of a defendant who might not actually be a criminal but just a poser trying to break into genre songwriting.
I am imagining a retard narrating an actual crime . . . I am reminded of the gangster who tattooed his murder of a rival gangster on his chest; the tattoo was used as evidence against him in court for the murder: https://archive.ph/mIU6p
The tattoo is stronger evidence than the lyrics mentioned in the article, in my opinion. The lyrics claim a general life of crime, but it's the prosecutor's job to establish not that the defendant is a murderer but that he committed this murder.
One of the lyrics used in the indictment is “Me and my crew striking out, striking in all black, send me the drop, we’ll kick in the house, if we steal a car we’re going to take off the tag.”
I don't think there's anything there to identify a specific incident, let alone proving insider knowledge of the crime. If those lyrics make him guilty of burglary and car theft, he's guilty of every burglary and car theft in the city.
This is not state's rights. Murder is a state responsibility. Of course they can make it harder or easier to use rap lyrics as evidence, provided that it doesn't violate the Fed constitution.
More fundamentally, those in executive power will try to extend executive power. And those in control of the federal government will try to extend federal power at the expense of the states, and vice versa.
To be for "state's rights" there would at least be a controversy, otherwise you are supporting a proposition that no one has ever opposed. In this case, it is something no one has ever opposed.
This is to protect pedophiles
This is what California considers states rights
The Epstein solution
The truth about the covid hoax is misinformation, and now illegal.
If dickheads confess to their depredations in their shitty "lyrics," why not use it against them in court?
How is it different from, "Dear diary: Today I robbed and beat an old Chinese man half to death because he looked at me sideways. It's good to be a gangster"?
The usual assholes are of course moaning about "racism" because evidently no white rapper has ever narrated his crimes in lyrics.
I don't see what this has to do with "state's rights."
The argument is that most art is not autobiographical. People don't write slasher movies because they're secretly serial killers; they do it because it's a popular genre that can be made on a budget, and they would argue that the same could be true of a defendant who might not actually be a criminal but just a poser trying to break into genre songwriting.
I understand.
I am imagining a retard narrating an actual crime . . . I am reminded of the gangster who tattooed his murder of a rival gangster on his chest; the tattoo was used as evidence against him in court for the murder: https://archive.ph/mIU6p
The tattoo is stronger evidence than the lyrics mentioned in the article, in my opinion. The lyrics claim a general life of crime, but it's the prosecutor's job to establish not that the defendant is a murderer but that he committed this murder.
From the article:
I don't think there's anything there to identify a specific incident, let alone proving insider knowledge of the crime. If those lyrics make him guilty of burglary and car theft, he's guilty of every burglary and car theft in the city.
Reminds me of that South American journalist who was reporting on his own murders.
This is not state's rights. Murder is a state responsibility. Of course they can make it harder or easier to use rap lyrics as evidence, provided that it doesn't violate the Fed constitution.
More fundamentally, those in executive power will try to extend executive power. And those in control of the federal government will try to extend federal power at the expense of the states, and vice versa.
Yes, but I am still not sure how this relates to "state's rights".
This is not even a controversial area. Even the least state's righty person will say that murder is a state responsibility.
To be for "state's rights" there would at least be a controversy, otherwise you are supporting a proposition that no one has ever opposed. In this case, it is something no one has ever opposed.