Rap song that threatened police officers is not protected speech.

[Chris]

These rulings are dangerous.

Any ruling where we must depend on the government for what used to be common sense is dangerous.

[Chris]

I don't know, when Ted Nugent told Obama to suck his machine gun, isn't that threatening?

I doubt the court makes decisions based on whataboutisms.

Besides"

On Sunday, Nugent told "Fox & Friends" that his machine gun statement "was a direct response to the liberal Democrats — Obama and Clinton, et al — to ban certain types of firearms, violating their oath to the Constitution and the Second Amendment.”

“That was a metaphor and nobody is too stupid not to know that,” he said. "But the left is so dishonest that they have misrepresented that."

@ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...eful-rhetoric/

[Major Lambda]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has rejected a free speech claim by a rapper who threatened to kill two Pittsburgh police officers he identified by name in a video titled “F— the Police.” The court upheld the conviction of Jamal Knox on charges of witness intimidation and terroristic threats, report the Washington Post, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pennlive.com and the Associated Press. How Appealing notes news coverage and links to the Aug. 21 opinion. Using the name Mayhem Mal, Knox and another rapper threatened the officers who were scheduled to testify against them after arresting the pair on drug charges. The other rapper’s case was not before the court. The state supreme court said the conviction was not barred by the First Amendment because it was specifically intended to terrorize or intimidate.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...gn=daily_email

I predict that this will go up. Interesting....

Attachment 24183

"Among the category of unprotected speech are “true threats,” statements in which a speaker expresses a “serious” intent “to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”[3] Even though statutes that punish unprotected speech have “never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem”[4] and Congress has made it a crime to use interstate communications facilities to make “threats,” the law governing this subject has been unclear."


"The federal circuit courts of appeals disagree over the correct mens rea requirement necessary to prove a violation of the federal threat statute. A majority of those courts require the government to prove only that the defendant knowingly made a statement that “was not the result of mistake, duress, or coercion” and that a “reasonable person” would regard as threatening.[6] Other courts have required a different, stricter standard—one that requires the government to prove not only that the defendant knowingly made a statement reasonably perceived as threatening, but also that he subjectively intended for his communication to be threatening."


https://www.heritage.org/the-constit...ent-protection








Lummy

[Adelaide]

I think maybe naming the two officers forced the court to come to this decision. Music from the 60s onwards has been highly critical of government, military and law enforcement. None of those artists, and there are so many, ever faced charges for their music so far as I know.

[The Xl]

The real dangerous issue is that there isn't a check against the court on any level. It kinda just does whatever with impunity.

[DGUtley]

The real dangerous issue is that there isn't a check against the court on any level. It kinda just does whatever with impunity.

Actually, that's not true. This involves a federal constitutional right so the federal courts can weigh in here.

[MisterVeritis]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has rejected a free speech claim by a rapper who threatened to kill two Pittsburgh police officers he identified by name in a video titled “F— the Police.” The court upheld the conviction of Jamal Knox on charges of witness intimidation and terroristic threats, report the Washington Post, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pennlive.com and the Associated Press. How Appealing notes news coverage and links to the Aug. 21 opinion. Using the name Mayhem Mal, Knox and another rapper threatened the officers who were scheduled to testify against them after arresting the pair on drug charges. The other rapper’s case was not before the court. The state supreme court said the conviction was not barred by the First Amendment because it was specifically intended to terrorize or intimidate.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...gn=daily_email

I predict that this will go up. Interesting....

Attachment 24183

Terroristic threatening is not free speech even if it rhymes and is set to music.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has rejected a free speech claim by a rapper who threatened to kill two Pittsburgh police officers he identified by name ...

[MisterVeritis]

I think SCOTUS will reverse this.

I do not. The rapper threated to kill two named individuals.

[Ethereal]

There's no slippery slope. He NAMED them. He was threatening via a "song" by design. Guilty. Probably threatened a few black kids as well.

I think it's safe to assume he was threatening them. But it is just an assumption. And limitations on an essential right like speech should not be based on assumptions alone.

[donttread]

I don't know, when Ted Nugent told Obama to suck his machine gun, isn't that threatening?

I'm a huge second amendment guy, but I freely admit that Nugent is bonkers and has made other unacceptible references to the then president