3 ms·

Rapper BG ordered to have all future songs approved by US Government

blinded 2y ago
Clear violation of free speech. Where is the ACLU at?
- Graziano_M 2y ago
  I believe FIRE is on it.
- zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
  I agree, but this isn't any different than any of the other violations judges have been committing for decades.
- Etheryte 2y ago
  Free speech isn't universal, there are numerous well known exclusions [0]. The title of the article, while factually correct, is in my opinion pretty misleading. A more accurate description of events is that the artist is on supervised release from prison and this is one of the terms of his release plan, because it's strongly related to how he ended up in prison to begin with. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- aeadio 2y ago
  From just the first paragraph, it reads like they aren't trying to approve the release of those songs -- which they wouldn't have the authority to do. They are monitoring his activities as a condition of his parole, which is pretty routine. In this case they're putting forward the argument that he's intent on actively promoting violence with his music, and they are only willing to release him on parole if he curtails that behavior. I don't know this rapper's music, but this line of reasoning honestly doesn't seem out of the ordinary.
  - blinded 2y ago
    The point there being he might not write something because he knows they will read and dis approve. Its way to control his speech (and this his actions) because is prior actions mirrored his rap lyrics. If you support stopping this individuals right to speech do you also support doing the same for artists that haven't broken the law or are on parole?
- jprete 2y ago
  He's on parole from a felony conviction, so the rules don't apply in quite the same way. I think, legally, he's still in the custody of the government, which is exactly why he has a parole officer to supervise him. And it's a well-established precedent that felons can lose constitutional rights - the examples that come to mind are felons' voting and gun rights, and sex offenders' freedom of movement.
- Tuna-Fish 2y ago
  As he is on supervised release from a prison sentence, he does not currently have the full set of constitutional rights. The government can place nearly arbitrary restrictions on his life until his sentence is complete. If he disagrees with the restrictions, he is free to instead return to prison to finish his sentence behind bars. Or he can agree with the restrictions for the ~3 years he has left on his sentence and afterwards be free of them. To be clear, I do not necessarily agree with any of this, or think it's a good idea, but it is all settled law. Despite what it sounds like, this is not a violation of his constitutional rights, any more than preventing him from recording songs in prison is.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  The ACLU has changed - these days they’re more about letting their staff perform their personal political activism using their donors’ money. They stopped being principled about free speech years ago. FIRE is who fights for free speech now. See this article for more: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  If he doesn't like it he can go back to jail and not use the supervised prison release program, and release all the music-glorifying-murder he wants.
gjsman-1000 2y ago
I’m not convinced this is a free speech violation. He’s on parole - meaning the government has the legal right to put him back in prison basically at any moment. There’s no free speech in a prison (edit: officially yes, in practice, it doesn’t matter much). Supervised release also comes with all sorts of restrictions, including in some cases: No internet use, no contact with minors, no alcohol, mandatory check-ins, random searches, approved locations only, curfew at night, no leaving the country, no knowing association with other felons. This is hardly novel by comparison.
- Laaas 2y ago
  Since when is there not free speech in a prison?
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    Officially, it exists; in practice, behavior is so regulated it’s not worth much. My point is that it’s more of an “on paper” free speech in comparison to a non-incarcerated individual.
  - aeadio 2y ago
    They don't seem to be attempting to prevent him from publishing his music. They will just revoke parole if he violates their terms. They're not suppressing speech. They're giving him supervised release on condition.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Since they can put you in solitary confinement or beat you up for speaking
- yakito 2y ago
  In one way or another, we are all being supervised, even without having committed a crime. It is true that there is a thin line between supervision and the violation of rights, but I believe this requires deeper analysis. However, the fact that supervision exists should not surprise us at a time in history when individuals are more supervised than ever before. If in this case the supervision were a possible violation of his freedom of expression, then thousands of similar situations constantly occur with people’s freedom to move freely among other examples.
Laaas 2y ago
Interestingly this doesn’t see to be a violation of his freedom of speech. The order is simply that he must share it with the government, not that he can’t say it, AFAICT. But it can affect his supervised release seemingly.
- thuuuomas 2y ago
  Prior review is widely regarded as a restriction on freedom of speech.
- didgeoridoo 2y ago
  It seems unnecessary to impose this requirement, when the lyrics would eventually be public anyway. It’s also counterproductive, as it opens the government up to many more avenues of legal attack than simply warning him that publishing violent lyrics may cause an adjustment in his supervised release terms. I’d love to see the legal justification for applying this prior restraint. Seems like classic overreach, although I doubt the government will see real consequences beyond having their conditions dialed back to where they should have been anyway.
  - underseacables 2y ago
    It might even create a Streisand effect
- philip1209 2y ago
  The fourteenth amendment says that rights can be taken away for "rebellion, or other crime". The courts have upheld this, which is why most felons in the USA cannot vote. So, it's a conditional right, not a fundamental right.
soared 2y ago
> But Morgan said prosecutors’ concerns over Dorsey’s goals of rehabilitation were “legitimate”. So she would have the artist turn his lyrics over to the government prior to putting out or promoting any songs he planned to use them in, and at that point if they are deemed to be “inconsistent with the goals of rehabilitation”, prosecutors could ask to modify Dorsey’s supervised release terms. > As prosecutors asked, Morgan also reiterated that Dorsey must not work with people previously convicted of felonies unless given permission to do so, among other special conditions. She furthermore ordered him to complete 400 hours of unpaid community service. Seems pretty wild, but apparently laws work a bit different for people on probation/supervised leave from prior (not sure what that means)?
phendrenad2 2y ago
The real story here is what a big win this is for the rehabilitatory justice movement. Personally I think that prison time serves a number of purposes. It's a punishment in the classical sense (make people experience something they don't like, and they will weigh that experience when making decisions that could lead to it again), it stops criminals from committing their crime of choice in the near term (giving the public a break), and it serves as an opportunity to help those who have fallen into a life of crime gain skills and knowledge that can help them get a legal job. That last point feels like it's being misapplied here. Being a rapper, you say a lot of things that you don't mean. It's a mask, a persona. Glorifying gun crime is literally what the public pays you for. They want to hear it. So it seems like someone is a bit confused if they think that banning that content from his songs will help him rehabilitate.
dash2 2y ago
I feel like this is one of those moral dilemma things where: * It's probably really bad that BG is glorifying violence and murder and threatening witnesses * It would be better if he stopped * It's completely understandable that his parole should depend on him not doing it * The court should absolutely overturn this and protect his free speech so he can go on glorifying violence and murder Free speech, not just for good people!
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  He is a convicted felon; and while he serves his sentence, his constitutional rights can and will be substantially abrogated. This includes his right to vote, a sex offender’s right to move freely without being on a list, or a corrupt business executive’s right to be a CFO in the future. You have rights unless by your own actions you forfeit them. This has been upheld as constitutional. In some states, depending on your actions, you can even forfeit your right to live (though I get the controversy on that one far more). But on that note, threatening witnesses is always a crime. That is indefensible, and deserves prison no matter who did it. Saying he can’t do that in a parole release is like saying “don’t do crimes.”
  - McDyver 2y ago
    > forfeit your right to live That's a very interesting point of view, I had never thought of it that way: you can do whatever you want, but you will no longer be allowed to live. The consequence is almost presented as a choice, instead of a punishment.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      If you ever watch The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (it’s in the extended, not sure about the theatrical), there’s a similar concept. https://youtu.be/frJM35gWUFM?feature=shared https://youtu.be/frJM35gWUFM?feature=shared
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    While I agree (restricted rights is a punishment), the US legal system still seems focused on "revenge" vs "rehabilitation"; you mention sex offenders, they are on that list for life even if it was a case of peeing in public. People lose their right to vote. Regardless of whether you call it "rehabilitated" or "paid their debt to society", I don't think people should continue to be punished (e.g. by being on a list) after they've done their time. I'm aware this gets tricky with certain kinds of sex offenders though, who get out of jail and continue their shit; they have paid their debt to society, but they haven't and may never rehabilitate.
langsoul-com 2y ago
Need to add in the title that this is a condition of his parole.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  aye. "parole" changes that discussion 100%. random dude being told he can't -- ehh mostly free speech issue. convicted felon on parole making threats via audio recordings -- different story. he's basically "in prison" except they decided to let him out sometimes as long as he behaves himself, and he's not behaving himself.

Clear violation of free speech. Where is the ACLU at?

Graziano_M 2y ago
I believe FIRE is on it.
zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
I agree, but this isn't any different than any of the other violations judges have been committing for decades.
Etheryte 2y ago
Free speech isn't universal, there are numerous well known exclusions [0]. The title of the article, while factually correct, is in my opinion pretty misleading. A more accurate description of events is that the artist is on supervised release from prison and this is one of the terms of his release plan, because it's strongly related to how he ended up in prison to begin with. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
aeadio 2y ago
From just the first paragraph, it reads like they aren't trying to approve the release of those songs -- which they wouldn't have the authority to do. They are monitoring his activities as a condition of his parole, which is pretty routine. In this case they're putting forward the argument that he's intent on actively promoting violence with his music, and they are only willing to release him on parole if he curtails that behavior. I don't know this rapper's music, but this line of reasoning honestly doesn't seem out of the ordinary.
- blinded 2y ago
  The point there being he might not write something because he knows they will read and dis approve. Its way to control his speech (and this his actions) because is prior actions mirrored his rap lyrics. If you support stopping this individuals right to speech do you also support doing the same for artists that haven't broken the law or are on parole?
jprete 2y ago
He's on parole from a felony conviction, so the rules don't apply in quite the same way. I think, legally, he's still in the custody of the government, which is exactly why he has a parole officer to supervise him. And it's a well-established precedent that felons can lose constitutional rights - the examples that come to mind are felons' voting and gun rights, and sex offenders' freedom of movement.
Tuna-Fish 2y ago
As he is on supervised release from a prison sentence, he does not currently have the full set of constitutional rights. The government can place nearly arbitrary restrictions on his life until his sentence is complete. If he disagrees with the restrictions, he is free to instead return to prison to finish his sentence behind bars. Or he can agree with the restrictions for the ~3 years he has left on his sentence and afterwards be free of them. To be clear, I do not necessarily agree with any of this, or think it's a good idea, but it is all settled law. Despite what it sounds like, this is not a violation of his constitutional rights, any more than preventing him from recording songs in prison is.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
The ACLU has changed - these days they’re more about letting their staff perform their personal political activism using their donors’ money. They stopped being principled about free speech years ago. FIRE is who fights for free speech now. See this article for more: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...
IncreasePosts 2y ago
If he doesn't like it he can go back to jail and not use the supervised prison release program, and release all the music-glorifying-murder he wants.

I’m not convinced this is a free speech violation. He’s on parole - meaning the government has the legal right to put him back in prison basically at any moment. There’s no free speech in a prison (edit: officially yes, in practice, it doesn’t matter much). Supervised release also comes with all sorts of restrictions, including in some cases: No internet use, no contact with minors, no alcohol, mandatory check-ins, random searches, approved locations only, curfew at night, no leaving the country, no knowing association with other felons. This is hardly novel by comparison.

Laaas 2y ago
Since when is there not free speech in a prison?
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Officially, it exists; in practice, behavior is so regulated it’s not worth much. My point is that it’s more of an “on paper” free speech in comparison to a non-incarcerated individual.
- aeadio 2y ago
  They don't seem to be attempting to prevent him from publishing his music. They will just revoke parole if he violates their terms. They're not suppressing speech. They're giving him supervised release on condition.
- coldtea 2y ago
  Since they can put you in solitary confinement or beat you up for speaking
yakito 2y ago
In one way or another, we are all being supervised, even without having committed a crime. It is true that there is a thin line between supervision and the violation of rights, but I believe this requires deeper analysis. However, the fact that supervision exists should not surprise us at a time in history when individuals are more supervised than ever before. If in this case the supervision were a possible violation of his freedom of expression, then thousands of similar situations constantly occur with people’s freedom to move freely among other examples.

Laaas 2y ago

Interestingly this doesn’t see to be a violation of his freedom of speech. The order is simply that he must share it with the government, not that he can’t say it, AFAICT. But it can affect his supervised release seemingly.

thuuuomas 2y ago
Prior review is widely regarded as a restriction on freedom of speech.
didgeoridoo 2y ago
It seems unnecessary to impose this requirement, when the lyrics would eventually be public anyway. It’s also counterproductive, as it opens the government up to many more avenues of legal attack than simply warning him that publishing violent lyrics may cause an adjustment in his supervised release terms. I’d love to see the legal justification for applying this prior restraint. Seems like classic overreach, although I doubt the government will see real consequences beyond having their conditions dialed back to where they should have been anyway.
- underseacables 2y ago
  It might even create a Streisand effect
philip1209 2y ago
The fourteenth amendment says that rights can be taken away for "rebellion, or other crime". The courts have upheld this, which is why most felons in the USA cannot vote. So, it's a conditional right, not a fundamental right.

soared 2y ago

> But Morgan said prosecutors’ concerns over Dorsey’s goals of rehabilitation were “legitimate”. So she would have the artist turn his lyrics over to the government prior to putting out or promoting any songs he planned to use them in, and at that point if they are deemed to be “inconsistent with the goals of rehabilitation”, prosecutors could ask to modify Dorsey’s supervised release terms. > As prosecutors asked, Morgan also reiterated that Dorsey must not work with people previously convicted of felonies unless given permission to do so, among other special conditions. She furthermore ordered him to complete 400 hours of unpaid community service. Seems pretty wild, but apparently laws work a bit different for people on probation/supervised leave from prior (not sure what that means)?

phendrenad2 2y ago

The real story here is what a big win this is for the rehabilitatory justice movement. Personally I think that prison time serves a number of purposes. It's a punishment in the classical sense (make people experience something they don't like, and they will weigh that experience when making decisions that could lead to it again), it stops criminals from committing their crime of choice in the near term (giving the public a break), and it serves as an opportunity to help those who have fallen into a life of crime gain skills and knowledge that can help them get a legal job. That last point feels like it's being misapplied here. Being a rapper, you say a lot of things that you don't mean. It's a mask, a persona. Glorifying gun crime is literally what the public pays you for. They want to hear it. So it seems like someone is a bit confused if they think that banning that content from his songs will help him rehabilitate.

dash2 2y ago

I feel like this is one of those moral dilemma things where: * It's probably really bad that BG is glorifying violence and murder and threatening witnesses * It would be better if he stopped * It's completely understandable that his parole should depend on him not doing it * The court should absolutely overturn this and protect his free speech so he can go on glorifying violence and murder Free speech, not just for good people!

gjsman-1000 2y ago
He is a convicted felon; and while he serves his sentence, his constitutional rights can and will be substantially abrogated. This includes his right to vote, a sex offender’s right to move freely without being on a list, or a corrupt business executive’s right to be a CFO in the future. You have rights unless by your own actions you forfeit them. This has been upheld as constitutional. In some states, depending on your actions, you can even forfeit your right to live (though I get the controversy on that one far more). But on that note, threatening witnesses is always a crime. That is indefensible, and deserves prison no matter who did it. Saying he can’t do that in a parole release is like saying “don’t do crimes.”
- McDyver 2y ago
  > forfeit your right to live That's a very interesting point of view, I had never thought of it that way: you can do whatever you want, but you will no longer be allowed to live. The consequence is almost presented as a choice, instead of a punishment.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    If you ever watch The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (it’s in the extended, not sure about the theatrical), there’s a similar concept. https://youtu.be/frJM35gWUFM?feature=shared https://youtu.be/frJM35gWUFM?feature=shared
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  While I agree (restricted rights is a punishment), the US legal system still seems focused on "revenge" vs "rehabilitation"; you mention sex offenders, they are on that list for life even if it was a case of peeing in public. People lose their right to vote. Regardless of whether you call it "rehabilitated" or "paid their debt to society", I don't think people should continue to be punished (e.g. by being on a list) after they've done their time. I'm aware this gets tricky with certain kinds of sex offenders though, who get out of jail and continue their shit; they have paid their debt to society, but they haven't and may never rehabilitate.

langsoul-com 2y ago

Need to add in the title that this is a condition of his parole.

red-iron-pine 2y ago
aye. "parole" changes that discussion 100%. random dude being told he can't -- ehh mostly free speech issue. convicted felon on parole making threats via audio recordings -- different story. he's basically "in prison" except they decided to let him out sometimes as long as he behaves himself, and he's not behaving himself.