4 ms·

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 *

by 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.
ekianjo 2y ago
I thought that calls for violence do not get regular Free Speech protection ?
- DoesntMatter22 2y ago
  Us it a call for violence? If he is a screenwriter is that a call for violence?
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    Too clever by half; as this implies that a person who is a screenwriter, by their profession, is incapable of ever actually calling for violence.
karaterobot 2y ago
To me, it's not as much of an ethical question as a practical one. Clearly there are other rights that ordinary citizens have, which people on parole don't have in the same way: freedom of association, freedom of travel, the right to purchase firearms, and so on. It's not—to me—ipso facto a violation of his constitutional right to free speech, though I'd definitely listen to the argument that it was. To me, it's a simpler question of whether this is a stupid thing to do, because his songs don't pose a danger, and time spent by pretending government employees are suited to evaluating rap songs and guessing whether they are going to lead someone to murder someone else is time wasted, that could be spent doing something more useful.
HenryBemis 2y ago
There are Positive rights and Negative rights. Both should exist otherwise we become a jungle. The fact that you (or me) wouldn't go out killing and maiming doesn't mean nobody else would/will/does. So if for the protection of the many (yes I know - it is a slippery slope) a specific person has to count his words & actions, so be it. He made his bed. Now he is sleeping in it.
compsciphd 2y ago
when on parole, you are still serving your sentence. One doesn't have the right to our "normal" freedoms while in jail and therefore the concept of having one's free speech limited while on parole makes sense. It's not about good vs bad people. It's about you did a crime and haven't finished serving your time.
- axus 2y ago
  Prisoners have the "same" free-speech rights as free men, why would parole reduce them?
  - compsciphd 2y ago
    They don't. They have some rights, not all. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/free-speech-rights-of-prisoners.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/free-speech-righ... "A prison inmate retains only those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system." i.e. if restricting freedom of speech is consistent with that, they would be restricted. Not all forms of speech restriction are consistent with that (and if the state tried to restrict those, the courts would probably overturn it), but to say they have the same free-speech rights is objectively false. In this case, it would seem that the legitimate objectives of the correction system would fit with restricting his speech (as the OP states, it probably be better if he didn't do that).

by dash2 2y ago

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.

ekianjo 2y ago

I thought that calls for violence do not get regular Free Speech protection ?

DoesntMatter22 2y ago
Us it a call for violence? If he is a screenwriter is that a call for violence?
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Too clever by half; as this implies that a person who is a screenwriter, by their profession, is incapable of ever actually calling for violence.

karaterobot 2y ago

To me, it's not as much of an ethical question as a practical one. Clearly there are other rights that ordinary citizens have, which people on parole don't have in the same way: freedom of association, freedom of travel, the right to purchase firearms, and so on. It's not—to me—ipso facto a violation of his constitutional right to free speech, though I'd definitely listen to the argument that it was. To me, it's a simpler question of whether this is a stupid thing to do, because his songs don't pose a danger, and time spent by pretending government employees are suited to evaluating rap songs and guessing whether they are going to lead someone to murder someone else is time wasted, that could be spent doing something more useful.

HenryBemis 2y ago

There are Positive rights and Negative rights. Both should exist otherwise we become a jungle. The fact that you (or me) wouldn't go out killing and maiming doesn't mean nobody else would/will/does. So if for the protection of the many (yes I know - it is a slippery slope) a specific person has to count his words & actions, so be it. He made his bed. Now he is sleeping in it.

compsciphd 2y ago

when on parole, you are still serving your sentence. One doesn't have the right to our "normal" freedoms while in jail and therefore the concept of having one's free speech limited while on parole makes sense. It's not about good vs bad people. It's about you did a crime and haven't finished serving your time.

axus 2y ago
Prisoners have the "same" free-speech rights as free men, why would parole reduce them?
- compsciphd 2y ago
  They don't. They have some rights, not all. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/free-speech-rights-of-prisoners.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/free-speech-righ... "A prison inmate retains only those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system." i.e. if restricting freedom of speech is consistent with that, they would be restricted. Not all forms of speech restriction are consistent with that (and if the state tried to restrict those, the courts would probably overturn it), but to say they have the same free-speech rights is objectively false. In this case, it would seem that the legitimate objectives of the correction system would fit with restricting his speech (as the OP states, it probably be better if he didn't do that).