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.
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.
lol...
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.
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.