When is a song criminal?
Not just when the lyrics are bad, or when the singer is atrocious (don’t we all just want to strangle a horrible karaoke singer?). In America, though, songs can lead to criminal convictions. Specifically, rap or hip-hop songs sung by “gangsters”.
Take the case of Young Thug, or Jeffery Lamar Williams. The Grammy-winning rapper was arrested for “racketeering” and other “gang-related activity,” and his trial has started. Part of the prosecution’s strategy is to introduce Young Thug’s rap songs into evidence the lyrics are apparently so descriptively violent that they will convince a jury that Young Thug and his gang mates from YSL (Young Slime Life) are guilty.
Stuff like: “Smith & Wesson .45 put a hole in his heart, better not play with me, killers they stay with me.” Also, “I shot at his mommy, now he no longer mention me” (lyrics from his song “Bad Boy”). Or, “I killed his man in front of his momma, like…I shoot out, kill ‘em, not leaving a trace. I had to break in the safe, yeah, and I didn’t leave ‘em a trace” (from the song “Slatty”).
And what about his “Take it to Trial” song? It has stuff like “for slimes, you know I kill, trial, I done beat it twice. I’m undefeated like feds came and snatched me…I shoot at your mammy, need to stand down, I up my stamina, take it to trial, get an appeal” (how ironic the feds really did take it to trial).
But then, the gut reaction is to think: aren’t those songs, regardless of how one feels about rap in general, included within freedom of speech and expression protections? Aren’t they solidly within artistic freedoms?
Not just that, one would also think: Aren’t the songs merely sourced from the imaginations of the songwriters? The lyrics are poetry, and may reference real events from the writer’s life, but what’s their evidentiary value? How can they be used to convict a songwriter (unless, it’s a confessional where the writer admits to hacking a body to pieces and burying it in his backyard).
But now that I think about it, it’s not unusual in our history for societies, cultures, and nations to move against and stamp out songs. Songs have been banned. They have been eradicated. Perhaps, for fear that the song instigates revolution or unrest. Or that the song is disloyal to the government. Or that it perpetuates or immortalizes another religion as opposed to state-sanctioned religion. So, curtailing artistic freedoms isn’t that new.
In this case, the US law in questions deals with anti-racketeering (RICO). And RICO says “overt acts” that will end up “preserving, protecting and enhancing” the badass power and ugly influence of a gang is within the scope of the crime.
In Young Thug’s case, I suppose the theory of the case is that, the singing of his lyrics by his YSL gang mates is the overt act that’s criminal? Because it enhances the gang’s reputation? That YSL counts Young Thug amongst their midst, and they have the prestige, the connections, the cash, etc., to intimidate other gangs and extend their pernicious influence? The reasoning of the prosecution will be better explained during trial, I guess.
Whatever the reason, this case has certainly led to an outcry. Black men already have a criminality stigma attached to them, and rap songs which have ultra-violent lyrics do nothing to make them more appealing. But to introduce the rap song as evidence so as to help convict a black singer or songwriter merely reinforces the stereotypes --or so the argument goes. It’s a weaponization of their art.
A University of Richmond study found that over a period of 10 years, or from 2009 to 2019, song lyrics were used 500 times in criminal cases against black accused. The reason for such use? They were highly effective in obtaining convictions against the accused, as the jury would be persuaded as to the guilt of that black gangsta sitting in the defendant’s chair.
Which is why some states in America like California have legislated against the use of rap or hip-hop lyrics in criminal cases. They want real evidence to be introduced in court, and not just songs. Advocates are hoping that California’s move will be replicated on a federal level, and a national law will be passed enshrining freedom of rap expression.
While they’re in the process of decriminalizing rap lyrics, maybe we can start criminalizing karaoke machines operating late at night. That’s more liable to incite crime than rap lyrics.