Freedom of speech, huh?

[sturg33]

Link: Rapper, Charged Under Newly-Enforced CA Law, Faces Life in Prison for Gang-Related Song Lyrics

San Diego rapper Tiny Doo, who has no criminal record, may end up being held criminally liable for a series of gang-related shootings to which prosecutors admit he has no direct ties, simply because he claims to be affiliated with the same gang on his new album No Safety. According to ABC News10 San Diego, he is the first person to be charged under a California law, passed in 2000, which seeks to punish anyone who benefits in any way from gang-related crimes. In this case, prosecutors argue that Brandon Duncan, also known as Tiny Doo, should be tried along with fourteen other alleged gang members who face attempted murder charges for a series of nine shootings, even though he did not participate in the crimes, because the shootings increased the notoriety of the gang mentioned on No Safety, thus boosting his album sales.

[zitothebrave]

What the ****?

Yeah I think that's my only reaction. ****ing states rights mother****ers.

[Metaphysicist]

I liked the interview with the law professor. "Uh, pretty sure that's not how the constitution works, guys."

[Krgrecw]

[QUOTE=Metaphysicist;168224]I liked the interview with the law professor. "Uh, pretty sure that's not how the constitution works, guys."[/QUOTE


Meta, by the definition of the California Gang Laws is Tiny Doo not guilty of what he is being charged with?

[Metaphysicist]

I have no idea how those laws are written, but if they are so broad that "rapping about gang violence" gets a life sentence, I would guess that the law is unconstitutional.

[Krgrecw]

He won't get a life sentence but he is profiting off of exploiting his friends gang lifestyle which makes him guilty under the law..



This isn't a case of Freedom of Speech. No one is telling this guy not to rap or what he's allowed to rap about But there are laws against people making money by promoting the gang lifestyle. That's what this case is about

[sturg33]

He won't get a life sentence but he is profiting off of exploiting his friends gang lifestyle which makes him guilty under the law..



This isn't a case of Freedom of Speech. No one is telling this guy not to rap or what he's allowed to rap about But there are laws against people making money by promoting the gang lifestyle. That's what this case is about

It's 100% about freedom of speech. Though I'm not surprised you advocate for this

[Krgrecw]

How is this about freedom of Speech? Do Son of Sam laws not even cover this scenario?




Where has anyone said this guy isn't allowed to rap or give his opinions? The law says you can't profit by exploiting crimes by people you are associate with.

[sturg33]

How is this about freedom of Speech? Do Son of Sam laws not even cover this scenario?




Where has anyone said this guy isn't allowed to rap or give his opinions? The law says you can't profit by exploiting crimes by people you are associate with.

We understand what the law is... The question is why is it a law?

[AerchAngel]

How is this about freedom of Speech? Do Son of Sam laws not even cover this scenario?




Where has anyone said this guy isn't allowed to rap or give his opinions? The law says you can't profit by exploiting crimes by people you are associate with.

KKK has been doing it for years, I don't see them put in jail for it. Every time they open their ****ing mouths they make money aiming to kill or do anything against blacks, not a peep being said.

[Metaphysicist]

No one is telling this guy not to rap or what he's allowed to rap about

Are you sure you read the article? That's exactly what they are doing.

[Hawk]

This is like Celine Dion being held responsible for the sinking of the Titanic.

[Runnin]

AA, you can kill or do anything against the KKK and you'll get not a peep from me.

[Krgrecw]

Article? Journalists don't tilt and charge articles to fit thier base?


The charge is the guy is profiting from associating with a gang. That's the charge. The Gang Laws in California say that since this guy glorifies a certain gang and exploits the gang and profits from it, he can be considered an associate and being charged with the gang

[zitothebrave]

This is like Celine Dion being held responsible for the sinking of the Titanic.

You found the loophole to arrest Celine Dion. I'll lure her to California.

[Krgrecw]

KKK has been doing it for years, I don't see them put in jail for it. Every time they open their ****ing mouths they make money aiming to kill or do anything against blacks, not a peep being said.

Yes, they 'open thier mouths' which makes it freedom of speech. There's no money being made unlike this case.

[Metaphysicist]

Yes, they 'open thier mouths' which makes it freedom of speech. There's no money being made unlike this case.

KKK members put out albums too:

[Krgrecw]

If people want to be technical is the KKK even a gang? Or are they a hate group?


Are hate groups covered under gang laws?

If those KKK albums are made and sold in California they should be held to the same charge as this guy as long as the same criteria is met

[50PoundHead]

The only thing he should be in jail for is his lousy stage name. Tiny Doo?

This is seriously effed up, but I'm old enough to remember all the anti-Communist red scare crap (not old enough to remember the heyday of the early-1950s however) and how that ruined lives/careers. It was big news when Zero Mostel played Tevye in the original production of Fiddler on the Roof in 1964 (even though he came off the blacklist a few years earlier).

[Hawk]

I'll lure her to California.

I worry about what this might entail.