NYC Mayor Adams not a fan of violent Hip Hop music

[ISO]

Why is it so complicated for you to understand, that the government cannot dictate which and what music can be created, played and performed??

That's the point. These individual DJs might have felt the pressure, but that was on them. They weren't forced to by the government.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that pressure from citizens, politicians, police, journalists can dictate what these square ran platforms do.

There’s a legitimate claim that these videos violate the rules of YouTube and social media websites because they threaten violence and physical harm. The police already uses these videos to connect crimes.

The government doesn’t have to force shyt.

 

[CrushedGroove]

The violence in hip-hop is not the cause of violence in community, but sometimes it is. It can be a catalyst to keep it going, especially recently with social media.

The are multiple factors for the cause of violence plaguing the community, but you can't dismiss the symptoms being a contributing factor to maintaining the cycle.

Highlighting the issues is one thing, exaggerating and promoting the furtherance of it is another.

I love this rap shyt but I do find myself at odds with it sometimes.

 

[Wear My Dawg's Hat]

I can't believe the Coli is this stupid about censorship Do you remember the Supreme Court cases vs the 2 Live Crew????

Private business can decide not to do business with any reason outside of any reasoning protected under the 14th amendment. But the government can't make rules that restrict speech. Music is considered speech.

There is no absolute, constitutionally protected right to "free speech." This fact is taught in most well-performing high schools...even junior high schools.

Constitutional protection is especially questioned when that speech become "commercial" in nature -- speech used for the purposes of selling advertising or subscriptions -- earning revenue.

Protected vs. Unprotected Speech Generally*****************

Under the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” As the Supreme Court has explained, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” (Texas v. Johnson) Though the text of the First Amendment limits only Congress’ ability to abridge speech, the courts have interpreted the First Amendment as being applicable to any “state action” by officials at any level of government. Thus, the First Amendment pertains to regulations by the FCC, acts of Congress, and the local police department. Private organizations, such as private art galleries or colleges, in contrast, are not technically bound by the First Amendment.

“Though the text of the First Amendment limits only Congress’ ability to abridge speech, the courts have interpreted the First Amendment as being applicable to any “state action” by officials at any level of government.”

“Speech” has been broadly defined by the courts to include not only verbal expression, but also visual art, music, theater, dance, and other expressive conduct and non-verbal forms of communication. However, First Amendment rights are not absolute and have some exceptions.

Unprotected speech includes:***************

Incitement to illegal activity and/or imminent violence;
defamation;
obscenity;
child pornography;
threats and intimidation; and
false advertising.

Government suppression of otherwise legal speech can be justified only if the government can advance a compelling reason. For example, national security concerns might justify suppression of an article describing military strategy in wartime. More often, free speech cases involve claims that government regulations are vague or overly broad, or that the government is engaging in viewpoint discrimination – trying to suppress speech indirectly, using its policing or spending powers, because of opposition to the message it conveys. As this website details, different forms of expression are protected to varying degrees, often depending on where the expression occurs, and whether the regulation is formulated or applied to affect the content or viewpoint of the speech in that forum.

Generally — Artist Rights

 

[ISO]

U know what’s funny about that SahBabii video? It led to that entire complex being indicted.

And he isn’t even from there or even a gangsta at all that’s one of his few street songs most his music about sex

 

[Big Blue]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that pressure from citizens, politicians, police, journalists can dictate what these square ran platforms do.

There’s a legitimate claim that these videos violate the rules of YouTube and social media websites because they threaten violence and physical harm.

The government doesn’t have to force shyt.

No because it can be easily claimed that it's art. That's literally been the defense for explicitl music for HUNDREDS of years. Music has had an immense amount of protection because of that. And it's not just drill, it's racist music, homophobic music etc. It's not like Russia where female punk bands can get arrest for saying fukk Putin, which has happened.

 

[Squirrel from Meteor Man]

Notice nowhere in my post did I mention a "magic pill". But you have to make up shyt or insinuate things to fit your misguided narrative.



Some of you coli nikkas really can't distinguish between causation and correlation.



But cool. Eliminate it from the city and watch how nothing changes. Then dumb fukks will find something else to blame, like baseball caps or Nike shoes.

This. They’ll always find another boogeyman.

 

[Big Blue]

There is no absolute, constitutionally protected right to "free speech." This fact is taught in most well-performing high schools...even junior high schools.

Constitutional protection is especially questioned when that speech become "commercial" in nature -- speech used for the purposes of selling advertising or subscriptions -- earning revenue.

Protected vs. Unprotected Speech Generally*****************

Under the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” As the Supreme Court has explained, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” (Texas v. Johnson) Though the text of the First Amendment limits only Congress’ ability to abridge speech, the courts have interpreted the First Amendment as being applicable to any “state action” by officials at any level of government. Thus, the First Amendment pertains to regulations by the FCC, acts of Congress, and the local police department. Private organizations, such as private art galleries or colleges, in contrast, are not technically bound by the First Amendment.

“Though the text of the First Amendment limits only Congress’ ability to abridge speech, the courts have interpreted the First Amendment as being applicable to any “state action” by officials at any level of government.”

“Speech” has been broadly defined by the courts to include not only verbal expression, but also visual art, music, theater, dance, and other expressive conduct and non-verbal forms of communication. However, First Amendment rights are not absolute and have some exceptions.

Unprotected speech includes:***************

Incitement to illegal activity and/or imminent violence;
defamation;
obscenity;
child pornography;
threats and intimidation; and
false advertising.

Government suppression of otherwise legal speech can be justified only if the government can advance a compelling reason. For example, national security concerns might justify suppression of an article describing military strategy in wartime. More often, free speech cases involve claims that government regulations are vague or overly broad, or that the government is engaging in viewpoint discrimination – trying to suppress speech indirectly, using its policing or spending powers, because of opposition to the message it conveys. As this website details, different forms of expression are protected to varying degrees, often depending on where the expression occurs, and whether the regulation is formulated or applied to affect the content or viewpoint of the speech in that forum.

Generally — Artist Rights

Incitement is very specific. This is why Travis Scott is in trouble. He literally told the crowd to hop the fence. But implicitly talking about shooting your opp doesn't count unless it's evidence for separate crime.

Otherwise Dipset, D Block, etc. would have been locked up a long time ago . Art has a lot of leeway. As a musician I know.

Even when you shout fire in a movie theater, there has to be clear evidence that the intention was to start a riot for it to be a crime.

 

[ISO]

No because it can be easily claimed that it's art. That's literally been the defense for explicitl music for HUNDREDS of years. Music has had an immense amount of protection because of that. And it's not just drill, it's racist music, homophobic music etc. It's not like Russia where female punk bands can get arrest for saying fukk Putin, which has happened.

That cannot be argued

The person who you are “smoking” is a real person…

U are a known gang member on a pyramid in some police office with priors…

U have documented violent history with the person you are dissing or his associates…

Ya mfn artist moniker is ya street name

That is not art that is REALITY my boy you sounding like a weak ass public defendant for these nikkas

 

[Big Blue]

That cannot be argued

The person who you are “smoking” is a real person…

U are a known gang member on a pyramid in some police office with priors…

U have documented violent history with the person you are dissing or his associates…

Ya mfn artist moniker is ya street name

That is not art that is REALITY my boy you sounding like a weak ass public defendant for these nikkas

That's called evidence dumbass. If that opp was dead sure. But on its own it's not a crime. The fact that you can't the difference is stupid.

Adams wants that to be a crime BEFORE anything happened to the opp. That will never happen.

He's grandstanding. Anyone who knows anything about civics would know that.

 

[ogc163]

Lol Adam's is a fuccing idiot, blaming rap has to be one of the laziest forms of analysis regarding crime.

 

[ISO]

That's called evidence dumbass. If that opp was dead sure. But on its own it's not a crime. The fact that you can't the difference is stupid.

Adams wants that to be a crime BEFORE anything happened to the opp. That will never happen

Adams never said this obviously you would have to commit the crime first and you just said the shyt was art be consistent

 

[Matt504]

Lol Adam's is a fuccing idiot, blaming rap has to be one of the laziest forms of analysis regarding crime.

About as lazy as not watching the video in the OP where he doesn't blame rap for anything. His objective is to de-platform drill rappers from social media platforms.

 

[ISO]

Incitement is very specific. This is why Travis Scott is in trouble. He literally told the crowd to hop the fence. But implicitly talking about shooting your opp doesn't count unless it's evidence for separate crime.

Otherwise Dipset, D Block, etc. would have been locked up a long time ago . Art has a lot of leeway. As a musician I know.

Even when you shout fire in a movie theater, there has to be clear evidence that the intention was to start a riot for it to be a crime.

When did D Block say who they was gonna shoot and explicitly refer to real life shootings and murders?

 

[Big Blue]

Adams never said this obviously you would have to commit the crime first and you just said the shyt was art be consistent

He said he wants drill music banned on YouTube dummy

 

[ISO]

He said he wants drill music banned on YouTube dummy

U said crime he never said it was a crime

Because he wants it deplatformed does not mean he wants it to be a crime