Freedom of speech, huh?

Carp said:
Oh I'm not saying I agree with it. It's extremely BS what they are attempting to charge him with.
Click to expand...

Carp I meant agreeing with me that this isn't about free speech.

I can see and understand the law, but the dude won't do any Time
 
goldfly said:
it's a bizzaro world to try to read someone say this isn't a free speech issue
Click to expand...



No one said this dude can't rap about what he wants to. But to make money from rapping about the gang in a positive way and brag about what they do is the problem.

The law is written on the books. You can disagree with the law, buts it's written right there in English as to why this guy is getting charged with this

Guess it's a moot point since the dude is a member of that gang
 
Krgrecw said:
No one said this dude can't rap about what he wants to. But to make money from rapping about the gang in a positive way and brag about what they do is the problem.

The law is written on the books. You can disagree with the law, buts it's written right there in English as to why this guy is getting charged with this.
Click to expand...

He's getting charged with it, doesn't mean it's constitutional since it's rarely been charged (maybe the first time)

For example, Obamacare was a law on the books, but the SC could have overturned it as unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure the same thing will happen to this dumb law which tramples on the first amendment.
 
Krgrecw said:
No one said this dude can't rap about what he wants to. But to make money from rapping about the gang in a positive way and brag about what they do is the problem.

The law is written on the books. You can disagree with the law, buts it's written right there in English as to why this guy is getting charged with this

Guess it's a moot point since the dude is a member of that gang
Click to expand...

Such a weird mentality to have

The constitution said blacks were 3/5ths a person
The law, written in English, use to say blacks had to sit in the back of the bus, they couldn't eat at the counter etc, the law said booze was illegal during a time

Keep repeating that it is the law is a simpletons view and to say this isn't about free speech at all is just dumb
 
zitothebrave said:
You're both so wrong it's sad. What's sad is krg was probably saying Duck Dynasty dad was first Amendment when it wasn't.

"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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This law is prohibiting free speech as a rapper can't say what he wants to say in his raps. News papers make money reporting rap violence, let's criminally charge them!!!

According to that law, Martin Scorsese should be in jail, Brian De Palma should be in jail, Bobby Deniro should be in jail, and everyone tied to Boardwalk empires as they're promoting felonious conduct by gang members. Or are gangs only ran by black people?

Law as it's being enforced is a first amendment issue, he's not allowed to say what he want.
Click to expand...

In what way does this affect what he can or cannot say/rap about? It is being argued (poorly might add) that he profited off gang violence. How he profited from it is not the issue that makes it a criminal act. The issue that makes it a criminal act is that he allegedly profited financially from gang violence.

And yes I agree it's a stupid law. I think we've already established that.
 
Carp said:
In what way does this affect what he can or cannot say/rap about? It is being argued (poorly might add) that he profited off gang violence. How he profited from it is not the issue that makes it a criminal act. The issue that makes it a criminal act is that he allegedly profited financially from gang violence.

And yes I agree it's a stupid law. I think we've already established that.
Click to expand...

so, your argument is

he and we all have freedom of speech no matter what

as long as you don't profit from it in some cases
 
Carp said:
In what way does this affect what he can or cannot say/rap about? It is being argued (poorly might add) that he profited off gang violence. How he profited from it is not the issue that makes it a criminal act. The issue that makes it a criminal act is that he allegedly profited financially from gang violence.

And yes I agree it's a stupid law. I think we've already established that.
Click to expand...

Did you read what you just typed?

In what way does this affect what he can and cannot say/rap about then say that the issue is he profited financially from gang violence, which the tie in is based on what he rapped about. So it clearly is effecting what he can and cannot say. Prosecutor said this

“We’re not just talking about a CD of anything, of love songs. We’re talking about a CD [cover] … there is a revolver with bullets,” said Deputy District Attorney Anthony Campagna.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-prison-time-for-crimes-commi/#ixzz3JnZJwrNt

Seriously. Well that settles that, Time to go arrest Axl Rose. Afterall how many GNR albums have Guns on them? Clearly they're promoting LA Gang violence.
 
So in the rap world, does getting caught up in a trial like this provide the same street cred boost that taking a bullet does?
 
goldfly said:
so, your argument is

he and we all have freedom of speech no matter what

as long as you don't profit from it in some cases
Click to expand...

You continue to dwell on one aspect of the case when it is clearly not the reason he was arrested. He was not arrested for rapping about gang violence. I don't know why you are having an issue understanding that. He was arrested for profiting from gang violence. The DA could not care less about the manner in which he profited from gang violence.

It's probably just a ruse anyways to get him to flip on his crew to avoid jail time.
 
Carp said:
You can continue to dwell on one aspect of the case when it is clearly not the reason he was arrested. He was not arrested for rapping about gang violence. He was arrested for profiting from it gang violence. The DA could not care less about the manner in which he profited from gang violence.
Click to expand...

i don't think the "right to free speech" is only there as long as you don't profit from it
 
And again, you are dwelling on the wrong aspect of the arrest. The manner in which the profit is made is not relevant under that law. It is the singular act of profiting that is illegal. And I've already agreed its a bogus law.
 
so, you think that cali law carries more weight than the freedom of speech in the bill of rights
 
I do not. But as I said, I don't believe them to be related in this particular case since the issue at hand is profiteering, not the manner in which he profited.
 
Facepalm all you want. Doesn't change the fact that the reason why he was arrested was profiteering.
 
50PoundHead said:
Gee, I hope no one in Hollywood ever makes a movie about gang violence.
Click to expand...

Ha. I remember in 2001 a found footage movie called Gang tapes came out. A few years later someone turned the clip in to CNN and they posted it on air as actual gang violence (the scene in question was a drive by scene from the movie). Cnn later apologized for airing it.
 
Carp said:
Facepalm all you want. Doesn't change the fact that the reason why he was arrested was profiteering.
Click to expand...

Which the evidence of that came from. Wait for it. His rapping wihch is a freedom of speech issue. History Channel has a gangland show, where they feature gangs and their most infamous acts and persons. They're profiteering off of gangs, send them to jail.

What this is, is a desperate DA hoping he will roll on someone because he's actually innocent. Classic abuse of power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top