Hard to take a lecture on the ’sanctity of life‘ from the guy whose festival killed 10 people and injured over 300. A solid legal argument for the First Amendment, but a very transparent PR pivot for someone currently settling wrongful death lawsuits.
slmask on
Ask Bobby Shrumda how that defense went for him.
schmoowoo on
Fuck Travis Scott
MWBrooks1995 on
Broken clock and all that, he’s not wrong.
Senior-Procedure-748 on
The article doesn’t get into the actual crime or the lyrics, or at least I quit fighting with that awful site before I found them. I agree with these guys though, you can’t use first amendment protected speech as a weapon against someone in a trial.
SGT_BlueJay on
Pretty sure hes never read it.
better_every_day14 on
I hate Travis Scott and wish him nothing but the worst, that being said I think he’s correct on this point.
HeiressOfMadrigal on
Meanwhile, the lyrics:
*I killed Darnell, yeah, I shot him with my nine, I shot him nine times 9:00pm on the dime / And by the way it was November 9th*
*Shot up Darnell with a long-ass gun, then tossed it into the aquarium / That’s right, I’m a murderer, come and get me / Come down the hall, you can’t get me*
Critical_Swimming517 on
Same guy who kept on singing while 3 people died at his show? He can eat my ass.
Gemstyle96 on
I heard Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno, Bob Marley shot the Sherriff, and the Dixie Chicks killed Earl too
yd208 on
Rap snitches, telling all their business / Sit in the court and be their own star witness.
Yelloeisok on
I wish them luck, but this rendition of the Supreme Court is not friendly to their side.
Jazzlike-Vacation230 on
„Rap snitches, telling all their business
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
„Do you see the perpetrator?“ „Yeah, I’m right here“
Long-Region5088 on
These people are all fucking morons.
“Anything you say can and will be used against you.” It’s like the second sentence they say after you get arrested.
Don’t write about the actual crimes you committed maybe? You can write about anything in the world. You don’t need to self incriminate to get there.
It’s also funny that ti, young thug, and Travis Scott submitted these briefs. The amount of rape, drugs, guns, and dead bodies from just those three people alone could fill stadiums. You want the killer mikes on your side, these others are just goofies
Johnnadawearsglasses on
I think there are two issues people are conflating. Rapping with violent content is very different from rap lyrics that are an admission of guilt in a specific crime. This case is about the way former. It’s the equivalent of Stephen King being on trial, convicted and then during sentencing admitting his books into evidence on the theory that they show he is violent.
SharMarali on
Travis probably isn’t helping by attaching his name to this, but the core argument appears to be legally sound.
The case has nothing to do with Travis specifically. It’s about an individual who was convicted of murder, and during the trial, the individual’s rap lyrics were used as part of his sentencing. The argument being that, because he wrote violent lyrics, he was an inherently violent man.
Whatever you think of Travis Scott, all he did in this case was attach his name to a friend-of-the-court brief, which can be filed by just about anyone with a vested interest in the subject matter. And it’s very true that this case sets a lousy precedent for chilling the First Amendment.
Sad-Math-2039 on
„Rap snitches, telling all their business
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
„Do you see the perpetrator?“ „Yeah, I’m right here“
Fuck around, get the whole label sent up for years, uh“
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
17 Kommentare
Hard to take a lecture on the ’sanctity of life‘ from the guy whose festival killed 10 people and injured over 300. A solid legal argument for the First Amendment, but a very transparent PR pivot for someone currently settling wrongful death lawsuits.
Ask Bobby Shrumda how that defense went for him.
Fuck Travis Scott
Broken clock and all that, he’s not wrong.
The article doesn’t get into the actual crime or the lyrics, or at least I quit fighting with that awful site before I found them. I agree with these guys though, you can’t use first amendment protected speech as a weapon against someone in a trial.
Pretty sure hes never read it.
I hate Travis Scott and wish him nothing but the worst, that being said I think he’s correct on this point.
Meanwhile, the lyrics:
*I killed Darnell, yeah, I shot him with my nine, I shot him nine times 9:00pm on the dime / And by the way it was November 9th*
*Shot up Darnell with a long-ass gun, then tossed it into the aquarium / That’s right, I’m a murderer, come and get me / Come down the hall, you can’t get me*
Same guy who kept on singing while 3 people died at his show? He can eat my ass.
I heard Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno, Bob Marley shot the Sherriff, and the Dixie Chicks killed Earl too
Rap snitches, telling all their business / Sit in the court and be their own star witness.
I wish them luck, but this rendition of the Supreme Court is not friendly to their side.
„Rap snitches, telling all their business
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
„Do you see the perpetrator?“ „Yeah, I’m right here“
These people are all fucking morons.
“Anything you say can and will be used against you.” It’s like the second sentence they say after you get arrested.
Don’t write about the actual crimes you committed maybe? You can write about anything in the world. You don’t need to self incriminate to get there.
It’s also funny that ti, young thug, and Travis Scott submitted these briefs. The amount of rape, drugs, guns, and dead bodies from just those three people alone could fill stadiums. You want the killer mikes on your side, these others are just goofies
I think there are two issues people are conflating. Rapping with violent content is very different from rap lyrics that are an admission of guilt in a specific crime. This case is about the way former. It’s the equivalent of Stephen King being on trial, convicted and then during sentencing admitting his books into evidence on the theory that they show he is violent.
Travis probably isn’t helping by attaching his name to this, but the core argument appears to be legally sound.
The case has nothing to do with Travis specifically. It’s about an individual who was convicted of murder, and during the trial, the individual’s rap lyrics were used as part of his sentencing. The argument being that, because he wrote violent lyrics, he was an inherently violent man.
Whatever you think of Travis Scott, all he did in this case was attach his name to a friend-of-the-court brief, which can be filed by just about anyone with a vested interest in the subject matter. And it’s very true that this case sets a lousy precedent for chilling the First Amendment.
„Rap snitches, telling all their business
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
„Do you see the perpetrator?“ „Yeah, I’m right here“
Fuck around, get the whole label sent up for years, uh“