General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRap Artist With No Criminal Record Faces Life In Prison For Album Lyrics
Brandon Duncan, also known as Tiny Doo, is in fact heading to trial, as a judge decided that there is legal grounds for prosecuting the man for his lyrics.
Were not just talking about a CD of anything, of love songs. Were talking about a CD (cover) there is a revolver with bullets, Deputy District Attorney Anthony Campagna said, justifying his unConstitutional prosecution of the musician.
Duncan is charged with gang conspiracy because his gang gained in status from crimes, and this prosecutors argue allowed him to sell more albums.
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/11/rap-artist-with-no-criminal-record-faces-life-in-prison-for-album-lyrics/#
In case you don't care for the source, here are a bunch of others...
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=Brandon+Duncan&oq=Brandon+Duncan&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j43i53.7613.7613.0.10129.1.1.0.0.0.0.523.523.5-1.1.0...0.0...1ac.-CfxkwYtdYA
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,513 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Besides I thought only the looney left went for conspiracy theories.
Isn't that meme?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)If he is convicted, then holy shit. That would be a game changer for anyone in the arts.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It could be found unconstitutional as applied in this instance.
And, the jury could acquit, either because of jury nullification or because it finds that making a cd does not show "specific intent" to increase criminal activity.
What I really hope is that the prosecutor is laughed out of court.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)AmeriKKKa.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)A Hispanic male might have received similar treatment, but I very much doubt anything like this would have happened to Justin Timberlake, regardless of what his lyrics said or his album cover looked like.
It's shameful. Americas original sin is racism, racism to African Americans and to First Nations. And behind that was greed, greed for free labor, greed for land and then greed for oil. Racism and greed went hand in hand. It spread to other races, like the Chinese who built the railroads. Then, it spread to immigrants in general.
The racism and the greed. They never seem to stop.
msongs
(67,343 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)are allowed to roam the streets because they wear a uniform.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Downwinder
(12,869 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)What about the bankers? I do not support violent gangs but aren't the Feds just the most dominant gang themselves? This is ridiculous. They waste taxpayer money and obviously have to many people on their payroll.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Per the linked article, it's a county DA's office, bringing a prosecution under a California statute that was enacted in 2000 but "that has never been used in court until now."
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I knew this didn't sound like them. Too petty. They go after the big boys.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The white collar big boys, anyway.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)that he didn't incorporate himself first.
After all, it's only human beings whose freedom of speech is curtailed.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Facts are very limited after all these years -- he's still releasing records somehow.
Prosecutors claimed the gun on the album cover was the murder weapon and played his lyrics in trial. The line "kicking down doors" and "killin' mommas."
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/17/entertainment/ca-boucher17
According to the LA Times, the prosecutor & rapper became business partners as recent as 2002.
druidity33
(6,444 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)"The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." ~George Orwell
K&R
paper boy
(52 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Hari Seldon
(154 posts)The First Amendment as written does not deny the states the right to deny freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law is very specific to CONGRESS, not to the STATES or to any other branch of Federal government.
Also, The courts have held that Freedom of Speech only stops Congress from PREVENTING speech, not from punishing speech after it has been made (IOW the government can't smash your printing press, but it can prosecute you for what you print after the fact)
Its amusing to watch people talk about something that we really don't have.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Rights as written in 1789 applied only to the federal government, but that much of the Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states by the 14th amendment.
Also, The courts have held that Freedom of Speech only stops Congress from PREVENTING speech, not from punishing speech after it has been made (IOW the government can't smash your printing press, but it can prosecute you for what you print after the fact)
It can prosecute you, within the bounds of good faith, but that doesn't mean that punishing you for speech would automatically be constitutional. That's what appeals are for. And a prosecution that violates existing Supreme Court precedent about freedom of speech just might not pass the good faith prosecution standard.
Its amusing to watch people talk about something that we really don't have.
And exactly what might that be, in your opinion? Please be very specific.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)The DA should be laughed out of court.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,138 posts)There has to be more to this story than just this. There just has to be.
If this story is true as reported, though, I'm speechless.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The first point is that he's actually not being prevented from speaking, singing, performing or whatever. It's the commercial aspect which is at issue.
The case seems to be based on a CA law briefly described here:
http://news.hiphopearly.com/rapper-tiny-doo-faces-life-prison-cutting-gang-related-album/
"...in 2000 California voters passed a law that allows for the prosecution of gang members if they benefit from crimes committed by other gang members. The state is arguing that Duncans gang status helped him sell albums."
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...what the state seems to be claiming here is that there is a demonstrable association between an actual crime and the profit made on this guy's media.
It sounds like a stretch, but the law seems to be specifically about the commercial aspect, not speech per se.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The point of laws like this - and many states have them - is to prevent criminals from profiting from accounts of their own crimes. They are directed to scenarios in which, say, Charles Manson could make money from publishing a book about the crimes for which he was convicted. It's not about the speech per se, but about the commerce.
The allegation here seems to be that he is profiting from accounts of crimes committed by gangs of which he is a member.
I'm not really aware of any TV networks which commit crimes, or conspire to commit crimes, and then report on those crimes for profit. Maybe the news works differently where you are. Yes, you can make money reporting or producing media about other people's crimes. Most network television entertainment seems to be about crime these days.
But in order to prove this case, the state is going to have to rely on tenuous evidence of associations.
spanone
(135,775 posts)Mike Nelson
(9,942 posts)...I wouldn't be interested in hearing the CD, but people shouldn't be sent to prison for naughty lyrics. There's not enuf room in prison!
Rex
(65,616 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)~Malcolm X
ctaylors6
(693 posts)This issue comes up frequently with mob books. The issue being whether someone can profit from a crime. The supreme court case concerned Berkowitz wanting to sell his story rights. It would be irrelevant for 1st Amendment purposes whether the speech is a song or a book. The SCt unanimously struck down the NY law at issue, which was considered much, much too broadly worded.
I can't find many details about the allegations in this particular case. The facts seem very sketchy to even show that this particular singer committed a crime much less that he's trying to profit from his crime.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It's about the commercial activity related to crimes with which the state is claiming he is somehow connected.
Seems to be a stretch.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)even when it's, you know, the actual son of sam.
And this is a criminal case. It makes no sense to me.
From what I read it doesn't seem like the law is about inciting imminent violence.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I wonder what the difference is.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Orrex
(63,166 posts)See Me So v. Horny, June 1990.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,262 posts)Though Duncan hasn't been tied to the shootings, prosecutors argued that he benefited from the shootings because his gang gained in status, allowing him to sell more albums.
http://www.10news.com/news/rapper-tiny-doo-will-go-to-trial_
Wagner's music undoubtedly became more popular in Nazi Germany because the regime promoted it. Wagner was even anti-semitic. But that doesn't mean you can blame him or his heirs for what the Nazis did.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Guy named himself after a kindergarten level word for feces?
I'm sure he's quite fierce.
Free speech issues aside of course...
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)Welcome to our for-profit prison country...
I would normally have hope this would be laugh out of the courts but I have lost hope .
dilby
(2,273 posts)The State of California can't have a black man walking around without having a felony label attached to him. Ugh this story pisses me off to no end and I swear to God the Racist fuck Deputy District Attorney Anthony Campagna better be a Republican.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)No other explanation.
Bonx
(2,051 posts)So they can fail miserably, & hopefully will never try this again.