Skip to comments.50 Cent and Universal sued for pushing "gangsta" life (Hah!)
Posted on 04/09/2008 4:59:08 PM PDT by DGHoodini
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Hip hop mogul 50 Cent, Universal Music Group and several of its record labels were sued on Wednesday for promoting a "gangsta lifestyle" by a 14-year-old boy who says friends of the rapper assaulted him.
The lawsuit filed by James Rosemond and his mother, Cynthia Reed, says Universal Music Group -- owned by Vivendi SA -- and its labels Interscope Records, G-Unit Records and Shady Records, bear responsibility for the assault because they encourage artists to pursue violent, criminal lifestyles.
The lawsuit also names 50 Cent -- whose real name is Curtis Jackson -- Violator Management, Violator CEO Chris Lighty, Tony Yayo, a rapper and a member of 50 Cent's G-Unit hip hop group, and Lowell Fletcher, an employee of Yayo.
All defendants declined to comment.
Oooops! Forgot to click the ‘This is an excetpt’ box.
There’s more at the Rueters link at the top of the thread.
Wow. This just seeing the light of day in a courtroom would be horrible. Any judge with half of a brain would laugh this off of the docket.
I don’t mind the idea, I just wish he had targeted Kayne West.
If I remember, 50 Cent is a conservative voice in that super liberal genre.
That is about a rough equivalent to being the sweetest girl in the whorehouse.
Why not. The KKK was sued out of existence.
Rappers might be the scourge of society but at least they are all pro 2nd Amendment and encourge their listeners to practice conceal carry. :)
I would love to see Fiddy beat the living sh!t out of Kayne, BTW. Maybe we could have a real-life Celebrity Death Match.
He’s backing Hillary.
I wouldn’t be so sure of that if I were you. >B-)
Didn’t he hust announce about a week or so ago, that he’d changed his mind, and was now backing Obama?
Beats me. It wouldn’t surprise me.
What? Are you one of those people who think it’s a Constitutionally protected right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater?
You hope that people start being sued for espousing music, art, perceptions, etc. that you don’t approve of?
I certainly don’t like rap one bit. But I do realize that freedom of speech means that what I feel about rap doesn’t, and shouldn’t, matter at all and I’m ok with that. If this is a free country the judge will laugh this case out of court. If this case actually does go to court the Constitution is dead.
Are you one of those people who think that outlawing guns will mean an end to crime?
I do when such speech threatens the general good, and causes the breakdown of the cohesion of the societal and civilisational bonds that any and all nations need to survive, to protect and aid its peoples.
‘Counter Culture’ is not allways benign or beneficial.
‘Change” can also be for the veey worst, as well as possibly being for the better.
in rfact, most forms of counter culture throughout history, have destroyed the functioning sicieties they flourished in, than they benefitted.
Hippies and their countet culture,were a blight, a disease, a plague upon the United States, that we have yet to be cured from.
Counter culturalism is worse than full blown AIDS, and is every bit as infectious.
Well it’s a good thing then that this is a nation of laws and not of men. Frankly, what you think is good or bad for culture and society means absolutely nothing. Whether you like it or not, words, no matter how offensive they may be to you, are not illegal. Part of the reality of living in a free country. Besides, blaming rap for the breakdown of society is nothing more than treating the symptom rather than the cause.
Nope! The right to keep and bear arms is specifically *for* normal civilized people to be able to protect themselfves from rhose who choose to lve as beastial creatures of the moment, without mores,and without acting under the rukles that govern a society of *Mankind*.
Every tight has it’s limmits, including Free Speech. To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice: The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are *not* a national suicide pact.
Ok, obviously the point of my question went right over your head.
I see. It’s nice to know that we have someone like you here to tell us what limits we have on our rights. Danke, Mein Fuehrer!
“Our old system of common law recognized the particular situation and invited the application of common sense. Common law evolved with the changing times and its truth was relative, Howard tells us, not absolute. But in this century statutes have largely replaced common law, and in recent decades regulations have come to dominate the legal landscape. Howard observes that the Interstate Highway System (still the nation’s largest public works program) was authorized in 1956 with a 28-page statute. Now, we attempt to cover every situation explicitly. He cites one contract lawyer who received a proposed definition of the words and/or that was over three hundred words in length. (Let alone the more recent and prominent lawyer who parsed carefully over the definition of what the word “is” is.)”
And it comes across to me, that you think the only “good” laws are laws that allow you to act irresponsably and lawlessly, no matter what cansequences others may face.
In which case, why should others feel or act any differently towards you? What care they, if you, or your rights are violated? Society? Schmoziety!
OK, you go ahead and threaten the life of the President with your “completely unabridged” Right of Free Speech.
Maybe your cell mates will all be small, pretty boys...but I wouldn’t count on it if I were you. :oD
What the hell are you talking about? Do you even hear yourself?
It comes across to me that you are akin to a petty dictator who sees nothing wrong with altering and erasing parts of the Constitution as you see fit based on your superior wisdom.
You obviously need to refill your prescriptions. As it is right now, I have no desire to continuing arguing with someone who has no concept of the rule of law and cannot accept that things aren’t illegal simply because they don’t score high on your decency meter.
Nonsense! A petty dictator would just kill all dissenters. I advocated that menaces to society, be given their date in court. And then, if found guilty of being menaces to sopciety, that the court rule as to what legal consequences are to be administered.
Cliches about yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.
Check out my new old tag line.
Your posts leave me wondering what *you* think the ‘Rule of Law’ means? Perhaps you think it a puzzle, that can be turned and put together in different solutions to mean whatever you wabnt it to mean, to suit your current purposes, instead of
a fabric of laws, meant to serve all, to comfort, warm, and protect all of society, and not just it’s miscreants?
Old, and a cliche, but it became a cliche, because of it’s underlying truth. All rights, like all privileges, come with responsibilities and duties. Otherwise, the right or privelege, become so tattered by abuse, they become unusable. Broken into disrepar, and eventually cease to exist.
This is what the Left, and unscrupulous ACLU lawyers do.
LOL, lemme guess, you like gangsta rap.
I think it's awesome. Bunch of clowns inciting violence. In the real world that gets you jail time.
Either you're stupid, or you just haven't been paying attention.
Um, you're free to speak; you're free to encourage poorly-educated children from broken homes that their only hope is to engage in criminal activity. You're also free to reap the consequences of your free speech.
Or does your version of freedom leave out those pesky consequences?
No, I hate it actually. I like stupid lawsuits even less.
OK, Mr Rule of Law, literal application, regardless of common sense Guy...Satisfy my curiosity: What is your opinion of the laws agaist Incitement to Riot? Are they unconstitutional? >Bo)
The point is, that the plaintiff would have to prove, in a court of Law, that the defendants were causing harm to society, and the common good. It is *their* right to try and make this argument stand, and to seek redress, penalties and compensation, if they do.
Only an idiot would think that someone, or some musical genre, should be able to encourage idiots to engage in crime without having to answer for the results of their activity.
These clowns give real libertarians a bad name.
Like I said, so nice to see that the first amendment for you is nullified when you hear something that you don’t like.
Come to think of it I think that fat people should be brought to court because their actions and behaviors indirectly cause health insurance rates to go up.
Speaking of health insurance, I think that people who don’t have any should be punished too.
While we’re at it, let’s punish gun manufacturers too because, as we all know, if they didn’t make guns then society wouldn’t be burdened by gun crime.
Along the same lines, I say that movies such as westerns, thrillers, and horror films should be outlawed because they encourage people to go out and commit violent acts.
And if those car companies would just stop making vehicles that went so fast people wouldn’t be encouraged to drive recklessly and cause accidents; punish them too.
Same thing goes for beer companies who make people drink too much of their product then get behind the wheel of a car to go home and beat their wives; they need to pay for the damage they do to society.
Sound ridiculous? No more ridiculous than advocating punishing someone for what other people decide, through their own free will, to do.
Don’t try to tell me that you believe in freedom.
Are you really a liberal? You go to hyperbolic extremes at the drop of a hat like one. Ever heard of the *spirit* of the Law, or is that a dirty concept to you? It’s Common Sense, and Common Law that just seems to evade your comprehension of the purpose of laws, to begin with.
If I say “Go On” to you, do I need worry that you will say”On What”, or conculde that i mean your PC, and you get the shock of your life as the electricity arcs back up your stream?
Wel them I guess Mr First Amendment Guy, IYO, there is no such thing as libel, slander, or intellectual property rights...
Bet the Gangta rappers would not be too thrilled to realize that none of their music copyrights are constitutionally legal, and actionable, in a court of law, under your definition unabridged Free speech Rights.
I am not a liberal. What I am is someone who believe in freedom, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and PERSONAL responsibility. I find it ironic that you accuse me of using hyperbolic extremes while at the same time asserting that people who would otherwise be law abiding citizens commit violent crimes solely because of what they hear in a song that someone else recorded.
You want to put an end to the violent ‘gangsta’ culture then focus on the reasons why people are compelled to follow that lifestyle. Liberalism has convinced these people that they cannot make it on their own and that they are in a hopeless situation because others are keeping them down. Decades of this kind liberal infestation has brought upon the destruction of the nuclear family, which in turn has lead to a generation of people who have no concept of responsibility, work ethic, and community. Blaming rap for the rise of gang culture is like blaming gas stations for drunk driving deaths. Rap is merely a symptom of gang culture, not the cause of it. Take it away and you will still have a generation of people who are convinced that they cannot succeed and be a productive member of society. You don’t treat a gaping shotgun wound with a band aid and some aspirin.
In the meantime, I am still uncompromising in my support for the full adherence to the first amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Now you are really reaching. This case has nothing to do with slander, libel, or intellectual property rights. The kid and his mother are suing because they feel that the songs that one person recored caused other people, who are unrelated to the person who recorded the song, to commit violent acts. Not sure where slander, libel, or intellectual property rights fits into that.
I’m not reaching at all. Your whole defense is based on the complete and unabridged Right of Free speech. My counter argument all along has been that even the Right of Free Speech has limits, and responsibilities. If there is no limits at all allowed on speech, then one cannot be prosecuted for appropriating anyone *elses* speech.
Therefore, all copyrights and patents, which are forms of speech, are all without legal standing. Same goes for libel and slander, both forms of speech, they would also have no force of law, if no forms of speech are able to be legally proscribed.
The mother and son are bringing legal action based on a claimed grievance. That they suffered physical , monetary, and emotional harm, and have accused that there is a direct linking chain of causality, from the musics’ author, and the record company, who have profited from the criminally indifferent sale of materials, that have incited, and instigated harm, not only generally in the communities that the music is sold in, but to the complainants in particular, who were harmed by the predatory violence incited by the music and it’s associated merchandise.
And my arguement is that one cannot be held responsible for the acts of someone else based on the fact that the person who committed the act heard something that the first person said. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. The person committing the act made their own personal decision to listen to the first person, then made their own personal decision to act based on what that person said. The person committing the act was not compelled nor forced to do anything, therefore the responsibility lies with that person alone. Speech is not a crime and should not be made into one in the event that other people who have committed actual criminal acts have heard it.
I wouldn’t blame a rapper in a recording studio for the actions of a gang banger anymore than I would blame a car company executive for a drunk driver causing injury or death on the road. The reason for this is because each one of those people who committed those acts used their own free will and made the conscious decision to break the law. The responsibility is theirs alone.
The suggestion that rappers should be held responsible for gang activity is akin to the liberal suggestion that gun manufacturers should be held responsible for shooting deaths. Or to put it another way, saying that getting rid of rap will bring about an end to gangs is like saying that outlawing guns will bring about an end to murder.
Tsk tsk tsk, in *this* country of all countries, you would advance an argument that people are not incited, instigated and/or compelled into actions, is jaw deopping. From the moment your brand name clock radio turns on in the morning, till the time you brush your teeth before bed with your brand name tooth brush, you are constantly being indtigated into doing thigs, acting certain ways, wearing certain types of clothes, picking certain vacation spots..etcetera etcerera...
Instigated by an industry that spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year, to get you and everyone else in their target markets to eat what they tell, you, wear a certain style of clothes, want a certain kind of car....You’d think that if all this time, they weren’t able to evoke emotions, and trigger responses, they’d have gone out of business...ohhhh...say a couple of hundred years ago.
All day every day, candidates implore you, actors cry for foreign children, Kids buy $250 tennis shoes, that cost $8.23 to make....
A steady diet of “gangsta culture” fed to small children listening to their older brothers and sisters music, in a violent neighborhood, hearing misogyny glorified, their aunts referred to as hoes...Children emulate what they see in their enviotnment that they see as being successful.
Now wether the plaintiffs can prove their claim,is unknown.
But there is evidence by the mountain range, that the actions and deeds of one, can cause the actions and yes, even incite violence of others. Culpability is not allways a cut and dried matter.