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.
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.
A day late and a dollar short but i’ll bite. :O)
It’s not a straw man argument. It goes directly to the point of whether or not there are common sense/law restrictions on Free Speech. And the answer is obviously, that yes there are.
There is a difference between inciting a riot in a crowded theater and writing a rap album.
What, pray tell? Both evoke fear and a desire to protect ones self, even if by violence or callus disregard for the lives and safety of others. Both target the fight or flight instincts of the audience...well in that there is a difference..rap music evokes the fight instinct much stronger than it triggers the desire for flight...But if you’re on the street ot in a shotgun shack, and you hear the sound of a “street sweeper”..I’d be willing to bet *your* first impulse would be to dive for cover too.
Bottom line, I happen to believe that when a person makes a conscious decision to do something that the consequences of that decision belong to that person alone. I used to listen to bands like Nirvana, and the Doors but it didn’t cause me to become a drug addict or alcoholic, and the same can be said for millions of other people. I am a huge fan of the show the Sopranos and movies like the Godfather, but they never caused me to aspire to join the mafia, and the same can be said for millions of other people.
I don’t believe in making excuses by blaming one persons behavior on someone else. What you are doing is blaming one group for the stupid actions of another group in much the same way that liberals and other assorted nanny staters are blaming banks and mortgage/credit companies for the fact that some people were stupid enough to take out home loans that they cannot afford to pay back.
Maybe you approve of the government legislating what is and is not acceptable for people to watch and listen to based on the assertion that some people MIGHT be compelled to act upon it, I don’t know. What I do know is that people who are inclined to commit violent criminal acts will still commit those acts whether they hear a recorded song or not, and that people who are inclined to be upstanding citizens will not commit violent criminals acts for hearing the same thing. Or maybe you believe that people are just too stupid to think and make decisions for themselves and need big brother to regulate and screen the kind of speech they are exposed to, in which case you cannot claim to support freedom and individual liberty.
Boittom line: There are commonsense/common Law restrictions on free speech...our entire system of governance would collapse without them.
This is a case which would help define those limits into a sharper focus. Does Free Speech encompass the right to cause harm to the greater good, and/or individual citizens?
Surely you do not attempt to say that words cannot do damage?
A right, *any* right, must be tempered with responsible use.
Oh really? a precautionary tale? :o)
Show me one instance of a riot, of a single person that can claim harm done them from the reading of 1984? *Some*one must show cause/injury/harm for there to be a basis for a case arguing for the banning of ‘1984’.
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.