Posted on 11/21/2014 9:12:34 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
Duncan faces 25-years-to-life on gang conspiracy charges brought against him this week, according to the Los Angeles Times. Prosecutors will reportedly look to prove that the album art "willfully promotes, furthers, or assists in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang."
"That gang" refers to the San Diego Lincoln Park gang, of which Duncan is a member, according to San Diego police. According to the Times, at least 15 Lincoln Park gang members have been charged in a recent string of shootings in the city.
Yet Duncan's attorney, Brian Watkins, told the paper that his client is innocent and the evidence against him insufficient.
"It's no different than Snoop Dogg or Tupac," Watkins said. "It's telling the story of street life. If we are trying to criminalize artistic expression, what's next, Brian DePalma and Al Pacino?"
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Much as I despise these thugs, I think that this would set a dangerous precedent.
So can they speak the word gun? Is that a crime too?
I hate gang bangers as much as the next guy but surely there are limits to government power (abuse)
Does this rise to the level of yelling “fire” in a theatre?
Well there's yer problem! Pay a little more attention to what's happening in the WH and you'll understand how you screwed up. Get your client some soap on a rope.
This guy may deserve to be in prison but I would rather him be free than to be convicted on this. If the government doesn’t have to prove a real crime to put you in prison, how long before this same arguement is used to charge the editors of “Guns and Ammo?”
Should shouting fire in a crowded movie theater be protected free speech? Why or why not. Discuss.
You are comparing this to shouting fire in a crowded theater??????
Agreed.
I don’t see the association between the two issues.
MY only question in this is, “Does Duncan have a felony record and/or on parole for something?”
The advocate should be careful in trying to stretch a legal concept too far.
Call Rap art maybe taking the legal notion of art as a form of speech protected by the first amendment to an absurd extreme.
Calling Rap art is laughable in its self.
ON the other hand the prosecutors are on very thin ice if they are basing their case strictly on the album cover.
What happens to him if he chews a slice of watermelon into a gun?
Does that really matter? We are discussing a picture, nothing more and nothing less.
You [and I] are about to learn the hard way that there are no limits to Government abuse if said Government chooses to abuse. The only remedy is bloodshed and thus far we, as a people, have shown that we are not willing to do that.
I actually hate gangsta rap. I think it is morally corrosive, and I would keep it off of any venue I controlled, and would keep it away from any degree of public support (e.g. publicly subsidized radio or platforms or schools) either direct or indirect. BUT...
Speech is still speech. It needs Constitutional protection particularly if it does not enjoy the support of the Opinionistas. Unless he were conspiring to facilitate crime, he is free to say what he pleases.
Eric Holder, on the other hand...
If you shout it to a rap beat your covered.
;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.