Rapper's Anti-Cop Song Gets Him A Two Year Bid [Archive]

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 1:03 pm

http://www.wftv.com/news/20235315/detail.html

POLK COUNTY, Fla. -- A Lakeland rapper is singing his way to prison.

Authorities say 20-year-old Antavio Johnson raps about killing two Lakeland police officers and refers to a Polk County sheriff's deputy and police dog killed in the line of duty. The song is called "Kill Me a Cop."

Johnson -- whose stage name is T.O. -- pleaded no contest to two counts of corruption by threat of a public servant and was sentenced on July 24 to two years in prison.

Authorities say that while being held at the Polk County Jail for violating probation on a cocaine possession charge, Johnson told a detective he wrote and recorded the song because he felt harassed by the police officers.

I know I'm gonna get roasted for this, but this is a First Amendment and artistic expression travesty. Period. They are slowly stripping our rights to free speech away, and just because the material is unpleasant everyone will wave it off until a real precedent is set and free speech is stifled.

Reminds of the lady who got jail time for writing fictional stories about child abuse.

This is getting insane.

Dr. Funkenstein

July 31st, 2009, 1:26 pm

This is okay...he's probably a liberal.

Panhead0422

July 31st, 2009, 1:41 pm

Before I get too hyper about this I would need more detail about what he actually pleaded guilty too and what the law in this case ACTUALLY says. However, based only on the OP and the lack of specific information there, I agree that something sounds really wrong with this.

Kelzan

July 31st, 2009, 1:42 pm

supreme_war_Pig

July 31st, 2009, 2:05 pm

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 2:32 pm

he plead guilty so there is NO claim of free speech to be made.

If i was on a jury i would be HARD to convince that he broke a constitutional law.

but he choose to plead guilty.

neoINDIE

July 31st, 2009, 2:37 pm

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 2:39 pm

Reminds of the lady who got jail time for writing fictional stories about child abuse.

This is getting insane.

was she found guilty by a judge or jury or did she also plead guilty to the charges?

MrCapitalism

July 31st, 2009, 2:40 pm

Just awful. Reminds me of the song Cop Killer. Maybe James Ellroy should be arrested for Killer on the Road. Afterall, that was written in the first person.

Oy.

Buffalo

July 31st, 2009, 2:44 pm

he plead guilty so there is NO claim of free speech to be made.

If i was on a jury i would be HARD to convince that he broke a constitutional law.

but he choose to plead guilty.
This is where it gets tough. We don't know what the songs lyrics were.

neoINDIE

July 31st, 2009, 2:46 pm

I would hope that the punishment for this kind of hatred would come from the community, family, etc.

You would think someone like this would be shunned.

I have my doubts, though.

Buffalo

July 31st, 2009, 2:46 pm

Just awful. Reminds me of the song Cop Killer. Maybe James Ellroy should be arrested for Killer on the Road. Afterall, that was written in the first person.

Oy.
NWA's **** tha Police is one of the first rap songs I knew every word to. It got a lot of blowback. But, like Cop Killer, it's generic. Maybe this dude's song wasn't.

MrShotShot

July 31st, 2009, 2:56 pm

Why does Obama do this?

sarcasm off

But we all know that if this had happened anytime over the last 8 years, some lib would be losing their mind screaming that this was a byproduct of Bush/Cheney policies.

Dr. Funkenstein

July 31st, 2009, 3:01 pm

he plead guilty so there is NO claim of free speech to be made.

If i was on a jury i would be HARD to convince that he broke a constitutional law.

but he choose to plead guilty.
That he was CHARGED is bad enough.

NascarGirl2448

July 31st, 2009, 3:23 pm

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 3:26 pm

That he was CHARGED is bad enough.

yeah, I agree. But this guy lost any sympathy when he accepted the charges. HE shoud have fought it. He would have won...eventually.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 3:31 pm

according to

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/crime/story.aspx?storyid=110610&catid=82

he names two cops by NAME. That link also has some of the lyrics.

Dual867PowerMac

July 31st, 2009, 3:35 pm

Dual867PowerMac

July 31st, 2009, 3:37 pm

Didn't Ice T have a song about killing cops a few years ago? Ironic that he ended up playing a cop on TV (Fin on L&O SVU). IF we got the whole story (and something tells me there's more to the story than we're getting) from the OP, then something ain't right in Florida about this mess.
"Copkiller." It was credited to Ice's heavy metal band Bodycount.

It's not bad. I like to blast it and drive through police department parking lots.

Wild Bill03

July 31st, 2009, 4:01 pm

Vaard

July 31st, 2009, 4:02 pm

i think it may have crossed a line pass free speech if he names cops.......

but florida has a long history of harassing musicians......

Vaard

July 31st, 2009, 4:03 pm

I remeber all the time Clapton got for "I Shot the Sheriff"

well, bob marley actually wrote that song....

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 4:55 pm

i think it may have crossed a line pass free speech if he names cops.......

I agree, I do not think direct threats have ever been covered.

but florida has a long history of harassing musicians......

yup Nick Navarro....

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 5:03 pm

well, bob marley actually wrote that song....

that song is a non-example. It was about a guy shooting the sheriff who was out to get him. I always assume this was after the sheriff murdered the deputy.

as a bit of trivia the sheriff in the song was "sheriff john brown" the same sheriff in inner circle's version of "bad boys" a song of the same name they re worked that was written by: Bob Marley.

grapabeaux

July 31st, 2009, 5:12 pm

Hold on a second.

Lakeland, Florida - A rapper who calls himself "T.O." was sentenced to two years in prison for violating probation with a rap song that threatened to kill two Lakeland Police officers.

If it's a probation violation, that changes the situation considerably.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 5:18 pm

Was he rapping about killing a specific cop or a general cop?

He mentioned a K-9 cop that got killed LOD, and mentioned two cops by name.

So what?

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 5:22 pm

i think it may have crossed a line pass free speech if he names cops.......

but florida has a long history of harassing musicians......

Someone should tell that Ice Cube back in 1993 with "Tear This ************ Up" off The Predator where he specifically said he would kill all four Rodney King cops and the King jury from Simi Valley.

Or Crooked I just recently on Slaughterhouses' "Move On" where he talks about killing the cop who shot Oscar Grant.

And is it just cops who are protected by this? If not, why isn't Eminem in jail? One of the most disturbing songs I've ever heard in my life ("Kim" off The Marshall Mather LP) is about him brutally murdering his wife and her boyfriend (and it's not the candy song from the first album that got all the attention).

Alaric

July 31st, 2009, 5:24 pm

I shot the Sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy
I shot the Sheriff, but I didn't shoot the deputy
All around in my hometown, they're trying to track me down
They say they want to bring me in guilty
for the killing of a deputy
for the life of a deputy, but I say:
I shot the Sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense
I shot the Sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense
Sheriff John Brown always hated me, for what I don't know
Every time that I plant a seed
He said: "Kill it before it grows!"
He said: "Kill it before it grows!" But I say:
I shot the Sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense
I shot the Sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense
Freedom came my way one day, and I started out of town
All of a sudden, I see sheriff John Brown
Aiming to shoot me down
So I shot, I shot him down, but I say:
I shot the Sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense
I shot the Sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense
Reflexes got the better of me, and what is to be must be
Every day, the bucket goes to the well
But one day the bottom will drop out
Yes one day the bottom will drop out, but I say:
I shot the Sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense
I shot the Sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense

Reminiscings of Morley/Clapton aside, I'm not entirely sure that the OP song completely passes constituional muster. Speech is not fully protected. Your right to freely petition the government for redress of grievances through speech is protected, and that speech can take many many forms. But threatening government officials with bodily harm or death is not protected speech. You can call them any kind of vulgar obscenity, make any kind of political threat, but you can not threaten to kill them.

jimjames418

July 31st, 2009, 5:40 pm

I know I'm gonna get roasted for this, but this is a First Amendment and artistic expression travesty. Period. They are slowly stripping our rights to free speech away, and just because the material is unpleasant everyone will wave it off until a real precedent is set and free speech is stifled.

Reminds of the lady who got jail time for writing fictional stories about child abuse.

This is getting insane.
It seems to me that what got him into trouble was in naming two actual officers and making threats against them. Read the first paragraph, he was sentenced to jail for breaking probation, not for writing the song.

LINK (http://www.newnation.cc/forums/showthread.php?t=161120)
Lakeland, Florida - A rapper who calls himself "T.O." was sentenced to two years in prison for violating probation with a rap song that threatened to kill two Lakeland Police officers. A Polk County gang detective found the lyrics on the Myspace page belonging to "Hood Certified Entertainment." T.O.'s song was called "Kill Me a Cop." He names two Lakeland Police officers by name. The detective says T.O. admitted to writing and recording the song. He told the detectives that the threats stemmed from feeling harassed by those particular LPD officers.

The song also made a specific reference to fallen officers Deputy Sheriff "Matt" Williams and K-9 DiOGi.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 5:42 pm

It seems to me that what got him into trouble was in naming two actual officers and making threats against them. Read the first paragraph, he was sentenced to jail for breaking probation, now for writing the song.

LINK (http://www.newnation.cc/forums/showthread.php?t=161120)

And I just provided two examples of nationally known rappers directly threatening to kill specific cops. I'd be willing to bet I could turn up a dozen examples for the Rodney King cops and another dozen for the Oscar Grant cops.

And he was sentenced for breaking probation because he was charged with a criminal offense for writing a song.

Dr. Funkenstein

July 31st, 2009, 5:44 pm

well, bob marley actually wrote that song....
and in reality, he shot the sherriff AND the deputy, but he plead down to the lesser charge of "jammin'"

Dr. Funkenstein

July 31st, 2009, 5:45 pm

Hold on a second.

If it's a probation violation, that changes the situation considerably.
Must have been some strict-ass probation if "stupid lyrics" were on his violation list.

Slowburn

July 31st, 2009, 5:45 pm

Sounds like he was making terroristic threats against a specific person which is a felony crime in many states.

http://www.lacriminaldefenders.com/CM/Violent-Offenses/Criminal-Threats.asp

jimjames418

July 31st, 2009, 5:50 pm

And I just provided two examples of nationally known rappers directly threatening to kill specific cops. I'd be willing to bet I could turn up a dozen examples for the Rodney King cops and another dozen for the Oscar Grant cops.

And he was sentenced for breaking probation because he was charged with a criminal offense for writing a song.
I would image that a part of the probation agreement he signed was that he would stay out of trouble with the law. He must have been doing something for the cops to talk to him about in order to feel harssed by them.

Just a smart ass kid, like Gates, doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. IMHO.:think:

LouC

July 31st, 2009, 6:09 pm

Someone should tell that Ice Cube back in 1993 with "Tear This ************ Up" off The Predator where he specifically said he would kill all four Rodney King cops and the King jury from Simi Valley.

Or Crooked I just recently on Slaughterhouses' "Move On" where he talks about killing the cop who shot Oscar Grant.

And is it just cops who are protected by this? If not, why isn't Eminem in jail? One of the most disturbing songs I've ever heard in my life ("Kim" off The Marshall Mather LP) is about him brutally murdering his wife and her boyfriend (and it's not the candy song from the first album that got all the attention).

Perhaps the issue hinges on the idiot using the officers actual names, that is the likely reason his lyrics have him in hot water and the others aren't.

Also his stuff was on a facebook site and not commercially produced.

I don't think this is a free speech issue.

When he used peoples names it crossed the artistic line.

Clamp

July 31st, 2009, 6:30 pm

that song is a non-example. It was about a guy shooting the sheriff who was out to get him. I always assume this was after the sheriff murdered the deputy.

as a bit of trivia the sheriff in the song was "sheriff john brown" the same sheriff in inner circle's version of "bad boys" a song of the same name they re worked that was written by: Bob Marley.

He shot the sheriff because he told him to kill his marijuana plants before they grew... :)

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 6:51 pm

Perhaps the issue hinges on the idiot using the officers actual names, that is the likely reason his lyrics have him in hot water and the others aren't.

Also his stuff was on a facebook site and not commercially produced.

I don't think this is a free speech issue.

When he used peoples names it crossed the artistic line.

From that Ice Cube song I metioned:

"Pretty soon we'll catch Sergeant Koon/
Shoot him in the face, run up in him with a broom."

He also names the other three by name.

So I take it your in favor of sending Eminem to jail for his repeated lyrical killings of his girlfriend/wife.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 6:53 pm

And I just provided two examples of nationally known rappers directly threatening to kill specific cops. I'd be willing to bet I could turn up a dozen examples for the Rodney King cops and another dozen for the Oscar Grant cops.

And he was sentenced for breaking probation because he was charged with a criminal offense for writing a song.

are you arguing that if something happened before and nothing was done about it then nothing can ever be done about it?

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 6:54 pm

I would image that a part of the probation agreement he signed was that he would stay out of trouble with the law. He must have been doing something for the cops to talk to him about in order to feel harssed by them.

Just a smart ass kid, like Gates, doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. IMHO.:think:

His right to say that in an artistic piece is protected by the First Amendment.

Hell, I've heard numerous songs over the last eight years threatening to kill or hurt George Bush, and yet none of those rappers went to jail, and it's actually a serious federal crime to threaten the president. Hmmm, I wonder why?

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 6:55 pm

are you arguing that if something happened before and nothing was done about it then nothing can ever be done about it?

I'm arguing that it violates the free speech clause and restricts artistic freedoms.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 6:56 pm

His right to say that in an artistic piece is protected by the First Amendment.

threats have never been protected.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 6:57 pm

threats have never been protected.

You better go check your case law, because yes they have.

Interesting that you clipped that second paragraph of my post.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 6:57 pm

I'm arguing that it violates the free speech clause and restricts artistic freedoms.

threats have never been protected under free speech.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 7:03 pm

well not in the last 70 years.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 7:06 pm

well not in the last 70 years.

There was a case at least as recently as the Seventies that upheld the precedent.

LouC

July 31st, 2009, 7:07 pm

...So I take it your in favor of sending Eminem to jail for his repeated lyrical killings of his girlfriend/wife.

Why on earth you would leap to such a non indicated conclusion of what you believe "I" favor?

Love it when people make such silly accusatory leaps.

If Eminem is charged with law breaking, pleads guilty to breaking said law, then I will favor his going to jail.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 7:07 pm

Why on earth you would leap to such a non indicated conclusion of what you believe "I" favor?

Love it when people make such silly accusatory leaps.

If Eminem is charged with law breaking, pleads guilty to breaking said law, then I will favor his going to jail.

I'm sorry, didn't you say that naming names is what made it unprotected by the First Amendment.

Feel free to respond to the first part of the post that you snipped too.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 7:08 pm

You better go check your case law, because yes they have.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11758

Interesting that you clipped that second paragraph of my post.

Yeah I did, I never post certin words in association with certin persons.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 7:10 pm

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11758

Yeah I did, I never post certin words in association with certin persons.

Makes it pretty easy to dodge the argument, no?

curtis123

July 31st, 2009, 7:12 pm

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 7:17 pm

I'm sorry, didn't you say that naming names is what made it unprotected by the First Amendment.

Feel free to respond to the first part of the post that you snipped too.

I am still at a loss as to what you are trying to achieve? you seem to keep giving similar examples were as far as you know no charges were ever brought.

But how is that at all relevant?

And something was said about this rapper being on probation. If he was then he could have very likely violated a stated term of his probation. You also seem to no be so intrested in the fact that the man plead guilty.

Now you might want to argue that he should have never been charged but Gooding v. Wilson, 1972; Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 1974; and Houston v. Hill, 1987.) seem to say that in some cases threat against police are not protected. So the case had legal basis.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 7:21 pm

Makes it pretty easy to dodge the argument, no?

i have already address it. prior examples of such things have no legal baring on this case. what you seem to be saying (for a third time) that if there are prior examples and there were no charges then you can not bring charges. I say that has zero legal basis.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 7:21 pm

I am still at a loss as to what you are trying to achieve? you seem to keep giving similar examples were as far as you know no charges were ever brought.

But how is that at all relevant?

And something was said about this rapper being on probation. If he was then he could have very likely violated a stated term of his probation. You also seem to no be so intrested in the fact that the man plead guilty.

Now you might want to argue that he should have never been charged but Gooding v. Wilson, 1972; Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 1974; and Houston v. Hill, 1987.) seem to say that in some cases threat against police are not protected. So the case had legal basis.

Right, so you're argument is that it's cool to threaten murder on private citizens by name in songs, but not the police.

And he violated his probation by getting charged with this as a crime.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 7:22 pm

i have already address it. prior examples of such things have no legal baring on this case. what you seem to be saying (for a third time) that if there are prior examples and there were no charges then you can not bring charges. I say that has zero legal basis.

And your argument is that even though there has not been a prosecution over something like this in living memory, it should be a crime now. I'd say that's a Mexican standoff.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 7:26 pm

Right, so you're argument is that it's cool to threaten murder on private citizens by name in songs, but not the police.

i said nothing of the sort. in fact i said that threats were not protected. you said they were. now you want to put words in my mouth? (or fingers) *one thing about me is if i say something about X I am never implying Y. If i say it should be a crime to throw rotten eggs at nuns... i am not saying it is okay to throw fresh eggs at taxi drivers*

And he violated his probation by getting charged with this as a crime.

well if that is it that is dumb. it is like if you got pulled over and got a ticket for pulling over.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 7:30 pm

And your argument is that even though there has not been a prosecution over something like this in living memory, it should be a crime now. .

i do not think past inaction has any legal baring on a case. and people have been punished by the government for making threats.

EDIT statement that i found offensive

LouC

July 31st, 2009, 7:35 pm

I'm sorry, didn't you say that naming names is what made it unprotected by the First Amendment.

What part of speculating that was possibly the reason is not understandable from my using "perhaps" to preface my comment?

Feel free to respond to the first part of the post that you snipped too.

What more should I say to non relevant trivia, non relevant trivia is what I snipped and responded to by not mentioning it, okay so now you have my second response to the non relevant trivia.

LouC

July 31st, 2009, 7:44 pm

What he was charged with under Florida Law, Corruption by threat against public servant, not having more information how specifically the following was applied is problematic.

838.021 Corruption by threat against public servant.-- (1) Whoever unlawfully harms or threatens unlawful harm to any public servant, to his or her immediate family, or to any other person with whose welfare the public servant is interested, with the intent or purpose:

(a) To influence the performance of any act or omission which the person believes to be, or the public servant represents as being, within the official discretion of the public servant, in violation of a public duty, or in performance of a public duty.

(b) To cause or induce the public servant to use or exert, or procure the use or exertion of, any influence upon or with any other public servant regarding any act or omission which the person believes to be, or the public servant represents as being, within the official discretion of the public servant, in violation of a public duty, or in performance of a public duty.

(2) Prosecution under this section shall not require any allegation or proof that the public servant ultimately sought to be unlawfully influenced was qualified to act in the desired way, that the public servant had assumed office, that the matter was properly pending before him or her or might by law properly be brought before him or her, that the public servant possessed jurisdiction over the matter, or that his or her official action was necessary to achieve the person's purpose.

(3)(a) Whoever unlawfully harms any public servant or any other person with whose welfare the public servant is interested shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Whoever threatens unlawful harm to any public servant or to any other person with whose welfare the public servant is interested shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.--s. 61, ch. 74-383; s. 37, ch. 75-298; s. 1316, ch. 97-102.

Click LINK (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0838/SEC021.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0838-%3ESection+021)

There certainly are plenty of cases cited in Florida for this law.

His getting two years, I speculate, when pleading guilty is likely a result of when he plead guilty to committing a crime while on probation it resulted in 2 years where many other people got far less sentencing for convictions under this law.

BillBrown

July 31st, 2009, 8:01 pm

This is where it gets tough. We don't know what the songs lyrics were.

It shouldn't matter what the lyrics were.
Unless it constitutes a direct and specific terroristic threat, it is free speech.

Drawz

July 31st, 2009, 8:32 pm

i do not think past inaction has any legal baring on a case. and people have been punished by the government for making threats.

Sorry to be "that guy" but I've seen the same thing in two posts on the same page.
It's "legal bearing" not "legal baring". Legal baring would be a completely different discussion!

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 8:39 pm

Sorry to be "that guy" but I've seen the same thing in two posts on the same page.
It's "legal bearing" not "legal baring". Legal baring would be a completely different discussion!

:)) yeah I do that often.

nortman

July 31st, 2009, 8:42 pm

Drawz

July 31st, 2009, 8:52 pm

:)) yeah I do that often.

:lol: Me too but I tend to add e's where they don't belong: scarey, arguement...

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 8:59 pm

:lol: Me too but I tend to add e's where they don't belong: scarey, arguement...

potatoe tomatoe

jimjames418

July 31st, 2009, 9:00 pm

Is there someting more to this story? It doesn't make any sense to me. Why was he arrested? I can't imagine that it was over the lyrics to a song. If it was only for that reason, why plead guilty to something that would be a first amendment violation?
He plead guilty to violating his probation agreement. I image that the two years was the balance he had to serve for his original crime.

Unless now the courts can't hold a person to the agreement they sign when they get out of jail/prison early. :think:

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 9:05 pm

What part of speculating that was possibly the reason is not understandable from my using "perhaps" to preface my comment?

What more should I say to non relevant trivia, non relevant trivia is what I snipped and responded to by not mentioning it, okay so now you have my second response to the non relevant trivia.

What is irrelevant about quotes of famous rappers doing the same thing? And not getting in trouble?

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 9:07 pm

It shouldn't matter what the lyrics were.
Unless it constitutes a direct and specific terroristic threat, it is free speech.

I don't understand what people don't get about this.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 9:09 pm

What he was charged with under Florida Law, Corruption by threat against public servant, not having more information how specifically the following was applied is problematic.

There certainly are plenty of cases cited in Florida for this law.

His getting two years, I speculate, when pleading guilty is likely a result of when he plead guilty to committing a crime while on probation it resulted in 2 years where many other people got far less sentencing for convictions under this law.

In this case, because it was a song, charging him under this law violates his rights under the First to freedom of artistic expression, and since the First Amendment is one of the amendments that has been "incorporated" to include the states. . . .

Drawz

July 31st, 2009, 9:12 pm

potatoe tomatoe

Exactly.
I think we should forget the rapper discussion and focus on legal baring.
I've got pic links but I think they might be too risqué for hannity. com :)

grapabeaux

July 31st, 2009, 9:30 pm

I don't understand what people don't get about this.

Death threats against police officers are not free speech, no matter how rhythmic they may sound.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 9:31 pm

Death threats against police officers are not free speech, no matter how rhythmic they may sound.

Yes they are. I've given examples in this thread.

jimjames418

July 31st, 2009, 10:11 pm

Yes they are. I've given examples in this thread.
Many laws have been changed since 9/11/2001. Among them is the making of death threats against first responsders. Actually, make a death threat against anyone is against the law.

Heck, even spitting at an LEO is consider felony assualt on a police officer. :think:

FidelisAdMortem

July 31st, 2009, 10:12 pm

Yes they are. I've given examples in this thread.

Do those examples contain named officers or general references?

I believe that is the distinction.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 10:13 pm

Do those examples contain named officers or general references?

I believe that is the distinction.

Named. All four Rodney King cops in the example. Graphic descriptions of how he would murder them.

FidelisAdMortem

July 31st, 2009, 10:15 pm

IMO, that should not be protected speech.

A threat is threat, no matter the way its displayed.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 10:18 pm

IMO, that should not be protected speech.

A threat is threat, no matter the way its displayed.

I don't like it, you know I'm no cop hater, but this is one of those "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" things.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 10:20 pm

Yes they are. I've given examples in this thread.

no you gave examples where some people got away with making threats. not the same as proof.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

July 31st, 2009, 10:22 pm

no you gave examples where some people got away with making threats. not the same as proof.

I can't prove negatives. No one can.

The fact that famous rappers have very publicly said this stuff repeatedly kind of establishes a pattern though, don't you think?

FidelisAdMortem

July 31st, 2009, 10:24 pm

I don't like it, you know I'm no cop hater, but this is one of those "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" things.

I disagree. I do not believe threats of death to specific named individuals is protected speech.

jimjames418

July 31st, 2009, 10:26 pm

I can't prove negatives. No one can.

The fact that famous rappers have very publicly said this stuff repeatedly kind of establishes a pattern though, don't you think?
And the duck drops and goes quack quack. You won the $25 prize.

Some rappers with a nationally known reputation and following said it, not some wack job who was having trouble with the police officers who he named.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 10:55 pm

I can't prove negatives. No one can.

The fact that famous rappers have very publicly said this stuff repeatedly kind of establishes a pattern though, don't you think?

a pattern is not law. but there are cases where threats were ruled to not be protected speech.

Talk2Bill

July 31st, 2009, 10:58 pm

And the duck drops and goes quack quack. You won the $25 prize.

Some rappers with a nationally known reputation and following said it, not some wack job who was having trouble with the police officers who he named.

good point the alleged threats in the other songs were different in the respect that the signer did not have an admitted personal beef with the targets of the threat.

Andrew_980

August 1st, 2009, 12:46 am

Serves him right, he asked for this just as if he talked about killing the president.
See what some time in the clink with Tiny does for his street cred

Cygnus X-1

August 1st, 2009, 1:26 am

"Deaded"

:rolleyes:

Pudge

August 1st, 2009, 2:53 am

All the cops did in this case was add to his street cred by busting him. Watch, in 2 years he'll be out and have a hit album.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 1st, 2009, 8:12 am

All the cops did in this case was add to his street cred by busting him. Watch, in 2 years he'll be out and have a hit album.

Yup.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 1st, 2009, 8:12 am

"Deaded"

:rolleyes:

It's being used as a verb in the past tense

Poisonshady313

August 1st, 2009, 8:59 am

LouC

August 1st, 2009, 9:39 am

What is irrelevant about quotes of famous rappers doing the same thing?

Nothing, I thought I explained that already, I wonder, why are you so confused?

And not getting in trouble?

Those others not getting into trouble is not relevant to this case in Florida.

LouC

August 1st, 2009, 9:50 am

Yes they are. I've given examples in this thread.

That is the stupidest argument I have heard in some time.

Some people not being arrested, charged, or convicted of a crime for an activity is not evidence that the activity is Constitutionally protected in all cases.

That, perhaps at most, proves no one took those people to task for that activity.

Not getting caught does not make it legal.

Pudge

August 1st, 2009, 3:05 pm

sgtmac_46

August 1st, 2009, 3:08 pm

http://www.wftv.com/news/20235315/detail.html

I know I'm gonna get roasted for this, but this is a First Amendment and artistic expression travesty. Period. They are slowly stripping our rights to free speech away, and just because the material is unpleasant everyone will wave it off until a real precedent is set and free speech is stifled.

Reminds of the lady who got jail time for writing fictional stories about child abuse.

This is getting insane.

It depends........can I write a song about killing the President and name him by name? Could I have ever done that? Nothing eroded. As for 'fictional stories' about child abuse, fiction doesn't involving naming names and giving a specific threat.........this is more in line with burning a cross in front of a minorities residence.

sgtmac_46

August 1st, 2009, 3:16 pm

I tend to side with free speech on this one. Unless the lyrics directly threatened the officers, and the officers believed that T.O. would try to carry out that threat, then it should be protected, if detestable, speech.

Then again, 'terroristic threats' is almost as vague as 'disorderly conduct', and perhaps the named officers were insulted by being referred to in song that way and decided to use the law in a manner it wasn't intended to be used.

If it's general, vague 'Cop' I agree with you......he names names and it becomes a threat.

If Officer ...................[name removed upon request by LPD] he care at all

Get my timing wrong

Im'ma be puttin' one in his dome

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=110682&catid=8

Seems pretty DAMN specific to me.......your freedom ENDS where someone else's begins.......specifically make a threat against their life, and it seems like a pretty specific threat.

sgtmac_46

August 1st, 2009, 3:17 pm

All the cops did in this case was add to his street cred by busting him. Watch, in 2 years he'll be out and have a hit album.

Exactly! Hell, he'll probably get a job as a Harvard Professor.

sgtmac_46

August 1st, 2009, 3:18 pm

Authorities say that while being held at the Polk County Jail for violating probation on a cocaine possession charge, Johnson told a detective he wrote and recorded the song because he felt harassed by the police officers.

http://www.wftv.com/news/20235315/detail.html

And I have the lyrics on hand... not to post.. but if anyone has questions.

I have questions and would love to see the specific lyrics.

I love the 'frustrated with police' argument.......EVERY criminal is frustrated with the police......Charles Manson is frustrated with the police. That's a dismissive argument that doesn't dismiss ****!

Kelzan

August 1st, 2009, 3:59 pm

He mentioned a K-9 cop that got killed LOD, and mentioned two cops by name.

So what?

If he talked about killing a specific living cop that does matter. If he mentioned cops who were killed in the past that's different.
I know if there was a song out there saying kill Kelzan I'd have a problem with it.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 9:31 am

It depends........can I write a song about killing the President and name him by name? Could I have ever done that? Nothing eroded. As for 'fictional stories' about child abuse, fiction doesn't involving naming names and giving a specific threat.........this is more in line with burning a cross in front of a minorities residence.

It's been done, the president thing, by artists like Eminem and Immortal Technique.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 9:33 am

If he talked about killing a specific living cop that does matter. If he mentioned cops who were killed in the past that's different.
I know if there was a song out there saying kill Kelzan I'd have a problem with it.

Why? Is there a difference between naming a cop by name and naming a public figure by name? Or a private citizen?

And if so, why is one covered by the First Amendment and not the other?

chip

August 2nd, 2009, 10:42 am

I'm arguing that it violates the free speech clause and restricts artistic freedoms.

You know as well as anyone else that free speech has its limits. Threatening a public servant is a third degree felony in Florida.

chip

August 2nd, 2009, 10:44 am

Why? Is there a difference between naming a cop by name and naming a public figure by name? Or a private citizen?

And if so, why is one covered by the First Amendment and not the other?

Because a private citizen has no power that can be influenced by threats.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 10:46 am

You know as well as anyone else that free speech has its limits. Threatening a public servant is a third degree felony in Florida.

And this is a layup appeal, because it violates the First Amendment and the First is incorporated to include the states.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 10:47 am

Because a private citizen has no power that can be influenced by threats.

So threats of violence against, say, Hillary Clinton in a song are illegal?

chip

August 2nd, 2009, 10:48 am

Yes they are. I've given examples in this thread.

Where did you give an example that songs have been ruled free speech?

Talk2Bill

August 2nd, 2009, 10:53 am

Why? Is there a difference between naming a cop by name and naming a public figure by name? Or a private citizen?

And if so, why is one covered by the First Amendment and not the other?

i do not think any threats are protected. The main difference may be in the fact that the thug in this case KNEW the officers in question and had reason to get them.

As far as differences between a public figure or private citizen are not what may make a difference. The difference may be the 'public servant' designation. As in many states a it is a felony to assault a public figure. (both private citizens and public figures can also be public servants (as are cops). Slug your neighbor it is a misdemeanor slug your kid's teacher it is a felony.

meggers49

August 2nd, 2009, 10:55 am

http://www.wftv.com/news/20235315/detail.html

I know I'm gonna get roasted for this, but this is a First Amendment and artistic expression travesty. Period. They are slowly stripping our rights to free speech away, and just because the material is unpleasant everyone will wave it off until a real precedent is set and free speech is stifled.

Reminds of the lady who got jail time for writing fictional stories about child abuse.

This is getting insane.

NWA had a song years ago called **** the Police where they talked about killing cops,etc.
My husband used to listen to it on the way to work. He was a patrolman in one of the rougher neighborhoods.

In his career he never had accusations brought against him for harassment or abuse, but listening to it did increase his vigilance.

I find that kind of talk/ music to be disgusting. I think it's inappropriate to have any music that talks about killing people out............not just that which references killing cops.

chip

August 2nd, 2009, 10:56 am

So threats of violence against, say, Hillary Clinton in a song are illegal?

Why do you keep running away from the case at hand that YOU posted?

The simple fact of the matter is that what this guy did was illegal in Florida and threats against public officials are a 3rd degree felony in Florida and no this isnt a violation of the first amendment, courts have ruled that threats to public servants arent protected.

Talk2Bill

August 2nd, 2009, 10:57 am

Where did you give an example that songs have been ruled free speech?

he didn't. He gave examples of songs with threats against specific people that as far as we know never lead to anyone being charged.

meggers49

August 2nd, 2009, 10:59 am

"Copkiller." It was credited to Ice's heavy metal band Bodycount.

It's not bad. I like to blast it and drive through police department parking lots.

and yet if something happens people expect cops to show up and die for them if need be.

Interesting.

gotta leave this thread. Can't stand the lack of respect, gratitude and can't stand the hypocrisy of people.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 11:03 am

Where did you give an example that songs have been ruled free speech?

There's no standing to bring charges, because the precedent was set like seventy years ago.

Let's take just a few examples of this exact same thing:

Big L: "My clan plans to have Giuliani hung."

Eminem: "Hillary Clinton tried to slap me and call me a pervert/I ripped her ****in' tonsils out and fed her sherbert."

Eminem: "I don't rap for dead presidents, I'd rather see the President dead."

Tupac: "Bustin' at Giuliani for rubbin' my *****s wrong."

A rapper named Diabolic said he would rape and murder Laura Bush with lyrics I won't repeat here.

Chino XL: "We movin' with the blue and the red/Giuliani with a gat to his head."

I can keep going if you want.

Talk2Bill

August 2nd, 2009, 11:04 am

Why do you keep running away from the case at hand that YOU posted?

The simple fact of the matter is that what this guy did was illegal in Florida and threats against public officials are a 3rd degree felony in Florida and no this isnt a violation of the first amendment, courts have ruled that threats to public servants arent protected.

And that he plead guilty!

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 11:05 am

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:05 am

It's been done, the president thing, by artists like Eminem and Immortal Technique.

JACKSON, MS (WLBT) - A man is behind bars after making threats on the internet to assassinate President-Elect Barack Obama. As it turns out the threat is not the only thing this man posted on the web. He calls himself "Stevie the Playboy", "Trinity" and in some cases "god." Friday 42 year old Steven Joseph Christopher is in jail under federal charges, but what was his plan and why would he want to assassinate President-Elect Obama? http://www.wlbt.com/global/story.asp?s=9690448 Then why aren't you defending this guy?

I guess it's not a threat if you SING the threat, using your logic, huh? ;)

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 11:06 am

Then why aren't you defending this guy?

I guess it's not a threat if you SING the threat, using your logic, huh? ;)

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

blackcatrun

August 2nd, 2009, 11:09 am

Why? Is there a difference between naming a cop by name and naming a public figure by name? Or a private citizen?

And if so, why is one covered by the First Amendment and not the other?

Depends on the motive. A threat to anouther would be a crime as we well know. If it was to be a popular record without any means to really do the action, it goes to say the artist is just selling records spewing bull. Many songs giving the establishment the finger are not ment in direct threat and are protected under the 1st admendment.

Artistic or not the threat TO was setanced for wasnt implyed, it was direct by the lyrics. I have read from a link posted here of TO's song. Which named the DEPT and officers whom have arrested the artist.
If you read them TO was indeed telling police that violence would happen if the artist was stopped again by police.

The First Ademndment doesnt protect this artist in making "direct threats" in the music written.

A woman who wrote about child abuse being thrown in prison? THAT is a direct violation of the 1st admendment without doubt. Whom ever took her to court and whatever judge she sat in front of needs to be reminded of that fact.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:10 am

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

That's asinine, pure and simple......the notion that you can say the same thing, but if you say it in a sing-song voice you're exempt......dumbest post of the week! :)) :)) :))

I'd have had more respect at your consistency of argument had you just defended the guys right to threaten the president over the internet, rather take the 'You can do it in a song, and it's okay' line of idiocy! At least then it would have had at least the illusion of coherency. :))

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 11:11 am

That's asinine, pure and simple......the notion that you can say the same thing, but if you say it in a sing-song voice you're exempt......dumbest post of the week! :)) :)) :))

Songs are works of fiction. That's the difference.

Talk2Bill

August 2nd, 2009, 11:11 am

like i said Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese, just because there were no charges doesn't mean they could not have. And lack of charges in the past is not a defense. And there could have been a protective order against this thug to not contact the officers. If so I would say the song that names them was a breach. (I am guessing here but no more than are any of his defenders that assume that the song was not itself a violation of his probation)

And even if I tend to agree that these examples should be protected the guy plead guilty. *and now the ACLU wants to step in? Well IF justice is fair then he will not ever have these conviction removed from his record. (Larry Craig: got no such special treatment.)

chip

August 2nd, 2009, 11:11 am

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:12 am

The First Ademndment doesnt protect this artist in making "direct threats" in the music written.
Exactly! You don't suddenly gain the ability to make a threat just because you sing it if what you said couldn't be said WITHOUT singing it.

chip

August 2nd, 2009, 11:13 am

What courts? What cases?

Bill linked one in this thread.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:13 am

Songs are works of fiction. That's the difference.

:)) :)) :)) :)) Careful, folks, don't drown in the bull ****!

Hint: If you're making specific threats against REAL people who you are ****ed off at.......IT AIN'T FICTION, GENIUS!

chip

August 2nd, 2009, 11:14 am

Songs are works of fiction. That's the difference.

All songs are works of fiction?

You are WAY out on a limb with that assertion brother.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 11:15 am

:)) :)) :)) :)) Careful, folks, don't drown in the bull ****!

That's a fact, jack. What is the difference between this and the movie "Assassination of a President?"

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 11:15 am

All songs are works of fiction?

You are WAY out on a limb with that assertion brother.

No, I'm not, legally.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:16 am

That's a fact, jack. What is the difference between this and the movie "Assassination of a President?"

Because the MAKER of the MOVIE didn't state in no uncertain terms he was going to put a BULLET IN THE PRESIDENTS 'DOME' the first chance he got! If he DID he'd be in FEDERAL PRISON! ;)

Singing something doesn't mean you can say something you couldn't say WITHOUT SINGING IT........if you think so, next time you're in COURT, sing something obnoxious to the judge......and then argue that you SANG it, so it's NOT CONTEMPT OF COURT! :))

Better yet......walk up to a cop on the street and SING 'I'm going to KILL you'.......:))

Talk2Bill

August 2nd, 2009, 11:18 am

What courts? What cases?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11758

this lists a few cases were people yelling at cops got them charged. now the first amendment give free speech on the street as well as on wax. The yelling of a threat on the street is identical to saying it on record.

And I am almost certain that the secret service give Eminem 'the business' for that one song.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 11:19 am

Because the MAKER of the MOVIE didn't state in no uncertain terms he was going to put a BULLET IN THE PRESIDENTS 'DOME' the first chance he got! If he DID he'd be in FEDERAL PRISON! ;)

No he wouldn't, if he did it in the movie.

I already posted one example, I could post numerous examples of rappers threatening to kill the president, Clinton and Bush.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:19 am

No, I'm not, legally.

:)) :)) :)) I appreciate the laughs......It's rare I actually sit at the computer laughing my ass off.....usually i'm just using it as a debate ploy, but you're literally making me laugh my ass off. :))

Talk2Bill

August 2nd, 2009, 11:20 am

and the makers of that movie are being watched. they all have files. believe it.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:20 am

no he wouldn't, if he did it in the movie.

I already posted one example, i could post numerous examples of rappers threatening to kill the president, clinton and bush.

:)) :)) :))

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 11:20 am

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11758

this lists a few cases were people yelling at cops got them charged. now the first amendment give free speech on the street as well as on wax. The yelling of a threat on the street is identical to saying it on record.

And I am almost certain that the secret service give Eminem 'the business' for that one song.

No, it's not the same. A song is an artistic product, not someone yelling on the street.

Give me a SCOTUS case where a threat on a song was ruled unprotected speech.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:21 am

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11758

this lists a few cases were people yelling at cops got them charged. now the first amendment give free speech on the street as well as on wax. The yelling of a threat on the street is identical to saying it on record.

And I am almost certain that the secret service give Eminem 'the business' for that one song.

Those guys didn't know the secret......they should have SANG their threat.....:)) :)) :))

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 11:21 am

:)) :)) :)) I appreciate the laughs......It's rare I actually sit at the computer laughing my ass off.....usually i'm just using it as a debate ploy, but you're literally making me laugh my ass off. :))

Just because it's detestable doesn't mean that it isn't free speech.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:22 am

no, it's not the same. A song is an artistic product, not someone yelling on the street.

Give me a scotus case where a threat on a song was ruled unprotected speech.

:)) :)) :)) :))

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:23 am

Just because it's detestable doesn't mean that it isn't free speech.

Hey, genius......the 1st Amendment makes ZERO distinction between SPEECH and SINGING SPEECH! :)) :)) :))

If you can't SAY it.....you can't SING IT! :))

'You can't threaten the life of the President.......BUT if you do it with a back beat we'll let it slide.......'

I can't MAKE this **** up! :))

You know I used that analogy of the guy threatening the president THINKING you just might be smart enough to declare HIS threat 'Free Speech' as well, thereby winning some part of this argument......but you took the bait FULL THROAT and went for the 'If you sing it, it's different' argument.....THANK YOU! :))

meggers49

August 2nd, 2009, 11:24 am

I don't understand what people don't get about this.

go to a movie theater and shout "fire". go to an airport and announce "hijack".

You cannot threaten a person, not in a song, not in person. That is not protected speech, it's considered at the least, harassment.

That others weren't prosecuted for it, doesn't make it any more acceptable or right.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 11:24 am

Hey, genius......the 1st Amendment makes ZERO distinction between SPEECH and SINGING SPEECH! :)) :)) :))

If you can't SAY it.....you can't SING IT! :))

The First makes a distinction between speech in the real world and artistic license.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 11:25 am

There's no standing to bring charges, because the precedent was set like seventy years ago.

Let's take just a few examples of this exact same thing:

Big L: "My clan plans to have Giuliani hung."

Eminem: "Hillary Clinton tried to slap me and call me a pervert/I ripped her ****in' tonsils out and fed her sherbert."

Eminem: "I don't rap for dead presidents, I'd rather see the President dead."

Tupac: "Bustin' at Giuliani for rubbin' my *****s wrong."

A rapper named Diabolic said he would rape and murder Laura Bush with lyrics I won't repeat here.

Chino XL: "We movin' with the blue and the red/Giuliani with a gat to his head."

I can keep going if you want.

Wondering why these guys aren't in jail for threatening public servants.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:26 am

the first makes a distinction between speech in the real world and artistic license.

:)) :)) :))

"i didn't really threaten the president.....you see, i'm an artist...."

i love it! :)) :)) :))

chip

August 2nd, 2009, 11:27 am

No, it's not the same. A song is an artistic product, not someone yelling on the street.

Give me a SCOTUS case where a threat on a song was ruled unprotected speech.

Um you are the one that is making claims here. So as Ive asked before. Provide a single case where ANY court has ruled threats against public officials in music as freedom of expression.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:29 am

Wondering why these guys aren't in jail for threatening public servants.

You can also wonder why this guy IS in jail for a statement on a UFO FORUM! :))

http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2009/01/assassination-threat-from-contactee.html

I know, HE SHOULD HAVE CALLED HIMSELF A PERFORMANCE ARTIST! :)) :)) :))

Someone needs to call this guys lawyers......Tommy has hit on a fool proof defense! :))

Or how about this guy?

WASHINGTON — An Internet radio host known for his incendiary views was arrested Wednesday in North Bergen, N.J., after federal officials charged that his angry postings about a gun case in Chicago amounted to death threats against three judges.

“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed,” Mr. Turner wrote in a blog entry on June 2. “Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/us/25threat.html

There is no indication that Mr. Turner or anyone else acted on his warnings. Nonetheless, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in an affidavit that it believed his comments constituted “a threat to assault or murder a United States judge.”

Someone needs to tell these guys all they have to do is SING their threats! :))

Oh, and pay attention, Tommy.......THIS part pertains DIRECTLY to your argument.....

Traditionally, the courts have given wide latitude to First Amendment rights, even in cases involving speech that is widely considered offensive, but public statements regarded as “true threats” have not been afforded legal protection. One key test case came in 2002, when a federal appeals court in California upheld a $109 million jury verdict against organizers of an anti-abortion Web site that distributed Wild West-style wanted posters of abortion providers, with photos of dead doctors crossed out. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/us/25threat.html

Okay.....the Wild West style wanted posters......not apparently protected.......but had they SANG their threat against the abortion clinic doctors......:think:

Talk2Bill

August 2nd, 2009, 11:48 am

No, it's not the same. A song is an artistic product, not someone yelling on the street.

Give me a SCOTUS case where a threat on a song was ruled unprotected speech.

show me a ruling where one form of speech is more protected than another.

Talk2Bill

August 2nd, 2009, 11:49 am

Wondering why these guys aren't in jail for threatening public servants.

because they did not get charged and plead guilty to said charges?

chip

August 2nd, 2009, 11:51 am

because they did not get charged and plead guilty to said charges?

Pesky facts.

Talk2Bill

August 2nd, 2009, 11:56 am

Pesky facts.

and if I have not been clear, I am pretty uncomfortable with charges being filed against a person for a song. However, the thug in this case affirmed the charges when he choose to plead guilty. Which makes me believe that there is more to this story that we are being told.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 11:58 am

and if I have not been clear, I am pretty uncomfortable with charges being filed against a person for a song. However, the thug in this case affirmed the charges when he choose to plead guilty. Which makes me believe that there is more to this story that we are being told.

There's not anything more to it......this dirtbag got arrested by these officers, was sitting in jail.......wanting to send a DEATH threat out to these officers, and used the same faulty logic that Tommy has been applying here......i.e. 'I'll get away with the threat if I SING IT instead of just SAYING IT.'

Context is EVERYTHING..........if you've got a PERSONAL GRUDGE against someone......you can't SING A THREAT and then pretend it's just artistic license.......most folks are smarter than that!

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 12:25 pm

because they did not get charged and plead guilty to said charges?

He didn't plead guilty. He stood mute, nolo contendre.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 12:29 pm

show me a ruling where one form of speech is more protected than another.

There are five different kinds of protected speech, political speech, fighting words, obscenity, etc. etc. etc. They all have different levels of protection.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 12:33 pm

You can also wonder why this guy IS in jail for a statement on a UFO FORUM! :))

http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2009/01/assassination-threat-from-contactee.html

I know, HE SHOULD HAVE CALLED HIMSELF A PERFORMANCE ARTIST! :)) :)) :))

Someone needs to call this guys lawyers......Tommy has hit on a fool proof defense! :))

Or how about this guy?

Someone needs to tell these guys all they have to do is SING their threats! :))

Oh, and pay attention, Tommy.......THIS part pertains DIRECTLY to your argument.....

Okay.....the Wild West style wanted posters......not apparently protected.......but had they SANG their threat against the abortion clinic doctors......:think:

I'll see your appeals court and raise you the SCOTUS ruling in the "Nuremberg Files" case.

I just spent an hour researching applicable law and discovered two things:

There appears to be no federal appeals or SCOTUS case regarding threats in songs.

The barrier for the speech becoming unprotected is "direct and imminent" not just for artistic expression, but any speech. A song does not rise to the level of an imminent threat if a website like the Nuremberg Files doesn't.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 1:29 pm

He didn't plead guilty. He stood mute, nolo contendre. Nolo Contendre is a no-contest plea.....it means he admits sufficient evidence exists to convict him.......it's a guilty plea 'lite'.

As to the 'Nuremburg Files' case, it should be noted they were charged for simply for making a LIST without a specific threat.....MUCH LESS naming names, and saying they're going to put a BULLET in someone's 'DOME'. ;)

Face it.....your so-called 'Free Speech' is nothing short of witness tampering.......it's a COMMUNICATED THREAT to witnesses in his CRIMINAL CASE! Oh wait, I forgot.........if you SING it it's not the same thing! :)) :)) :))

Set to rap music.....'If someone will PLEASE kill so-and-so, i'll pay them $5,000.00........thump, thump, thump.......' I didn't say it....I SANG it.........:)) :)) :))

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 1:30 pm

There are five different kinds of protected speech, political speech, fighting words, obscenity, etc. etc. etc. They all have different levels of protection.

Direct threats have never been protected, genius.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 1:31 pm

I'll see your appeals court and raise you the SCOTUS ruling in the "Nuremberg Files" case.

I just spent an hour researching applicable law and discovered two things:

There appears to be no federal appeals or SCOTUS case regarding threats in songs.

The barrier for the speech becoming unprotected is "direct and imminent" not just for artistic expression, but any speech. A song does not rise to the level of an imminent threat if a website like the Nuremberg Files doesn't.

:)) :)) :)) You lost an HOUR on this **** and you came back to the same stupid 'If you SING it, it's DIFFERENT' argument? DAMN, YOU BEEN HAD! :)) :)) :))

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 1:31 pm

Nolo Contendre is a no-contest plea.....it means he admits sufficient evidence exists to convict him.......it's a guilty plea 'lite'.

You know exactly why he pled nolo. . . .for the appeal.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 1:32 pm

Direct threats have never been protected, genius.

No, direct and imminent threats are not protected. That is the official legal line.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 1:38 pm

You know exactly why he pled nolo. . . .for the appeal.

Problem is he's using the same asinine logic you are.....that if you SING a threat it's not the same as SAYING IT! :))

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 1:39 pm

No, direct and imminent threats are not protected. That is the official legal line.

Communicated threats in a criminals case are NOT shielded simply because you SING THEM, genius. :))

The officers named in his song were WITNESSES in a criminal case against the defended, which is EXACTLY why he named them in his song and threatened their lives.

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 1:40 pm

There is more to the story here:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/southwest/orl-rapper-threatens-cops-080109,0,3166701.story

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,536060,00.html?test=latestnews

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 1:42 pm

Communicated threats in a criminals case are NOT shielded simply because you SING THEM, genius. :))Yes you're right. What raises my curiosity is the "imminent" nature of the threat. This was not sung live, but recorded at some time prior to it's release.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 1:43 pm

Yes you're right. What raises my curiosity is the "imminent" nature of the threat. This was not sung live, but recorded at some time prior to it's release.
True, though it's no different than a threatening letter.

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 1:43 pm

You know exactly why he pled nolo. . . .for the appeal."Nolo" does not give one any greater rights to appeal than does "guilty" or a jury verdict of guilt.

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 1:44 pm

True, though it's no different than a threatening letter.I've got to find the lyrics and judge for myself.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 1:46 pm

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 1:48 pm

I've got to find the lyrics and judge for myself.

If Officer ...................[name removed upon request by LPD] he care at all

Get my timing wrong

Im'ma be puttin' one in his dome

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story...110682&catid=8

Am as free speech as the next guy......I even defended the gal who got charged with the child abuse stories fiction. But a communicated death threat is still a death threat even if you put it to music.

I'd defend this guy IF he hadn't named specific officers to make death threats against.......that is where I feel he crossed the line......in making a very specific death threat. Had it been generic officer, or even used fake names.......FREE SPEECH.

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 1:55 pm

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 2:02 pm

It would be a dangerous precedent to allow an overt threat to the life of witnesses simply because it's hidden within a song. Imagine if you have a witness to a crime involving gang members, and his other gang member friends were allowed to make threats against the life of the witnesses IN PUBLIC simply by putting it to rap music.THIS is in another article (http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2009/7/31/503276.html): "Barajas (who posted the song on his website because he liked the beat) said Johnson never meant for the public to hear the song, which was recorded a couple of years ago."

I just don't see the imminent nature of the threat. At the same time I find lyrics like this very disturbing.

From the same article -
Johnson has also apologized for the song. His attorney said he could have beaten the charges from the song, but he accepted a plea deal to get a reduced sentence since he was already on probation for a drug conviction.Unless he ran some type of motion to dismiss based upon constitutional protections of freedom speech, he CANNOT appeal his conviction which probably runs concurrent with his drug sentence.

Probation violations are always a killer (no pun intended).

LouC

August 2nd, 2009, 2:21 pm

THIS is in another article (http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2009/7/31/503276.html): "Barajas (who posted the song on his website because he liked the beat) said Johnson never meant for the public to hear the song, which was recorded a couple of years ago."

I just don't see the imminent nature of the threat. At the same time I find lyrics like this very disturbing.

From the same article -
Unless he ran some type of motion to dismiss based upon constitutional protections of freedom speech, he CANNOT appeal his conviction which probably runs concurrent with his drug sentence.

Probation violations are always a killer (no pun intended).

I have read the Florida law "Corruption of Public Servant" (which I posted in this thread) that they used in this case, but not being trained in the law, I just don't understand how they applied it to his case?

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 2:35 pm

In searching for the lyrics, which I still have not found, I did find a plethora of sings advocating killing cops including, "How to Kill a Cop" by Ill Bill." After reading those lyrics I would not even post a link.

I'm sorry I didn't make it clear.....I posted the song link in the post above yours......but it seems they've removed the song lyrics. I posted part of them.

If Officer ...................[name removed upon request by LPD] he care at all

Get my timing wrong

Im'ma be puttin' one in his dome

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story...110682&catid=8

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 2:41 pm

THIS is in another article (http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2009/7/31/503276.html): "Barajas (who posted the song on his website because he liked the beat) said Johnson never meant for the public to hear the song, which was recorded a couple of years ago."

I just don't see the imminent nature of the threat. At the same time I find lyrics like this very disturbing. The disturbing part is his targeting of individuals. I can accept the general vague threats of violence as 'free speech'.

From the same article -
Unless he ran some type of motion to dismiss based upon constitutional protections of freedom speech, he CANNOT appeal his conviction which probably runs concurrent with his drug sentence.

Probation violations are always a killer (no pun intended). Thus illustrating precisely why he chose not to fight the issue.......he's not really doing 2 years on the charge for the song.......he's doing 2 years on his drug charge.......and doing 2 years on the charge for the song at the same time. The state gets it's 'conviction' and he doesn't do anymore time than he was already going.

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 2:41 pm

I have read the Florida law "Corruption of Public Servant" (which I posted in this thread) that they used in this case, but not being trained in the law, I just don't understand how they applied it to his case?I listened to the parts of the song which were posted online and, honestly, without seeing the lyrics I have a hard time deciphering what the man is singing.

But that aside if he had ADVOCATED the killing of police, I would be saying screw his freedom of speech. But from a purely legal standpoint when someone says, "I want to ...", or "I should have..." or "One day I'm going to ..." that's a lot different from a criminal threat in which the writer has the specific intent to terrorize another person (even if he has no intentions of actually carrying out the threatened crime). In California, for example, the threat must be "so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety". Again, if for no other reason, I do not see how a two year old song qualifies. Especially SINCE writing the song he had gone on to recording Christian gospel music.

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 2:43 pm

The disturbing part is his targeting of individuals. I can accept the general vague threats of violence as 'free speech'.

Thus illustrating precisely why he chose not to fight the issue.......he's not really doing 2 years on the charge for the song.......he's doing 2 years on his drug charge.......and doing 2 years on the charge for the song at the same time. The state gets it's 'conviction' and he doesn't do anymore time than he was already going.I don't know Florida law (and hope to never have to learn it :). But in California such a charge (criminal threats) is a serious felony under the 3 strikes law.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 2:50 pm

I listened to the parts of the song which were posted online and, honestly, without seeing the lyrics I have a hard time deciphering what the man is singing.

But that aside if he had ADVOCATED the killing of police, I would be saying screw his freedom of speech. But from a purely legal standpoint when someone says, "I want to ...", or "I should have..." or "One day I'm going to ..." that's a lot different from a criminal threat in which the writer has the specific intent to terrorize another person (even if he has no intentions of actually carrying out the threatened crime). In California, for example, the threat must be "so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety". Again, if for no other reason, I do not see how a two year old song qualifies. Especially SINCE writing the song he had gone on to recording Christian gospel music.

As pointed out what he specifically did was name to Officers by name, and say that he

If Officer [name removed upon request by LPD] he care at all

Get my timing wrong

Im'ma be puttin' one in his dome

But you make an excellent argument about the time frame of the song and the issue.......especially as it pertains to how the song came to the public attention. Especially, if in fact, he never intended for the songs release.........those arguments would put in to question, in my mind, the wisdom of pursuing criminal charges on the matter.

But what needs to be put to rest is the previous argument put up by Tommy that a threat isn't a threat if you sing it........had this song been written recently and been published by this gentleman, I would entirely support charging him based on the concept that this constituted a publicly conveyed threat against witnesses in his criminal proceedings.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 2:53 pm

Yes you're right. What raises my curiosity is the "imminent" nature of the threat. This was not sung live, but recorded at some time prior to it's release.

It was from six months ago. Tell me how that rises to the imminent standard.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 2:55 pm

"Nolo" does not give one any greater rights to appeal than does "guilty" or a jury verdict of guilt.

I know that, but it gives his I'm sure very expensive pro bono lawyer more room to maneuver because he didn't actually admit guilt.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 2:57 pm

I know that, but it gives his I'm sure very expensive pro bono lawyer more room to maneuver because he didn't actually admit guilt.

:)) :)) :)) I think he just told you that it gives him jack **** more room to maneuver.

The REASON he made the plea is because he got a concurrent sentence.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 2:58 pm

Problem is he's using the same asinine logic you are.....that if you SING a threat it's not the same as SAYING IT! :))

The "fighting words" standards apply to all speech. The threat must be direct and imminent.

I don't know how you can say with a straight face that it's legal for an anti-abortion group to post an internet death list with names and keep it updated as their killed or wounded, but rapping a police officer's name is a crime.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 2:59 pm

It was from six months ago. Tell me how that rises to the imminent standard.

It's certainly not effected by whether he sang the threat or not. ;)

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 3:00 pm

:)) :)) :)) I think he just told you that it gives him jack **** more room to maneuver.

The REASON he made the plea is because he got a concurrent sentence.

Do you actually live somewhere the prison system is uncrowded enough that pretty much everything isn't a concurrent sentence, outside of media cases?

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 3:01 pm

The "fighting words" standards apply to all speech. The threat must be direct and imminent.

I don't know how you can say with a straight face that it's legal for an anti-abortion group to post an internet death list with names and keep it updated as their killed or wounded, but rapping a police officer's name is a crime.

I said it was legal for an anti-abortion group to make death threats? Your cheese has slipped off your cracker! :))

What was 'direct' and 'imminent' about Steven Joseph Christopher threat against Obama on an UFO forum? Think on that one for a while, champ. ;)

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50G07920090117

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 3:02 pm

It's certainly not effected by whether he sang the threat or not. ;)

There are extra protections provided for artistic expression. I was under the impression that the direct and imminent rule applied mostly to art, but in fact it applies to almost any speech.
So, yeah, score one for you. I ****ed up.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 3:03 pm

Do you actually live somewhere the prison system is uncrowded enough that pretty much everything isn't a concurrent sentence, outside of media cases?

The point, since you OBVIOUSLY missed it (surprise) is that he isn't really DOING two years for his rap song.......he's doing 2 years for the DRUG CASE........and he pled to the song because they offered him a concurrent sentence.

By the way......odd's are he won't appeal this......doing so would get him a new trial, and the possibility of being CONVICTED and serving additional time.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 3:03 pm

I said it was legal for an anti-abortion group to make death threats? Your cheese has slipped off your cracker! :))

What was 'direct' and 'imminent' about Steven Joseph Christopher threat against Obama on an UFO forum? Think on that one for a while, champ. ;)

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50G07920090117

You didn't say it, the Supreme Court said it in the Nuremburg Rules case. The death list was ruled to be protected speech because it didn't rise to the imminent standard.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 3:04 pm

There are extra protections provided for artistic expression. I was under the impression that the direct and imminent rule applied mostly to art, but in fact it applies to almost any speech.
So, yeah, score one for you. I ****ed up.

:)) :)) :)) :)) :))

'You see, your honor....i'm an online Performance Artists, and these threats against President Obama were an artistic expression......yeah, that's the ticket.....' -Steven Joseph Christopher

:)) :)) :)) :))

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 3:06 pm

I disagree. I do not believe threats of death to specific named individuals is protected speech.But does it not have to be intended as a threat?

Let's say there is someone I totally hate and I write him a letter and state, "I am going to kill you the next time you walk out your front door and I'm serious." Actually, there is a theory amount mental health professionals that writing things down is actually therapeutic. So let's say I write it down, then throw it in the trash. Did I commit a crime by writing it? What if someone finds the letter in the trash and publishes it on the internet? If it wasn't a crime before, does it become a crime when published?

My understanding about THIS case is that the man recorded the song a couple of years before it was ever heard by law enforcement. Should that make a difference.

By the way this is not always about police. I got a letter from a client in prison. Even though letters are supposed to be censored by prison officials before mailing, he got away with it as "legal mail." The letter said he was going to burn my house down with me inside and kill me if I survived the fire and he even stated my address in the letter. The man was in prison for arson serving a 33 year sentence after HE CHOSE to plead guilty rather than face a much longer sentence if he went to trial. I reported the letter to my local police and to the Department of Corrections and I moved. He was never charged with a new crime. But somewhat to my satisfaction he died in prison.

The difference there was he had a history of violence and threatened the same type of violence against me. In the story we are discussing, as far as I know the rapper had no history of violence and the threat had no other credibility.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 3:06 pm

You didn't say it, the Supreme Court said it in the Nuremburg Rules case. The death list was ruled to be protected speech because it didn't rise to the imminent standard.

The DIFFERENCE is that they maintained a list, but NO ONE RUNNING the site made a DIRECT THREAT OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AGAINST ANYONE!

An IMPLIED threat is an insinuation........entirely different than a DIRECT STATEMENT that i'm going to 'PUT A BULLET IN YOUR DOME!' ;)

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 3:06 pm

:)) :)) :)) :)) :))

'You see, your honor....i'm an online Performance Artists, and these threats against President Obama were an artistic expression......yeah, that's the ticket.....' -Steven Joseph Christopher

:)) :)) :)) :))

Listen, you can feel free to laugh your ass of at me if you can show me one case where a musician was prosecuted for naming names in a threatening manner in a song.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 3:07 pm

The DIFFERENCE is that they maintained a list, but NO ONE RUNNING the site made a DIRECT THREAT OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AGAINST ANYONE!

An IMPLIED threat is an insinuation........entirely different than a DIRECT STATEMENT that i'm going to 'PUT A BULLET IN YOUR DOME!' ;)

Go read the case and get back to me. You will be surprised.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 3:09 pm

But does it not have to be intended as a threat?

Let's say there is someone I totally hate and I write him a letter and state, "I am going to kill you the next time you walk out your front door and I'm serious." Actually, there is a theory amount mental health professionals that writing things down is actually therapeutic. So let's say I write it down, then throw it in the trash. Did I commit a crime by writing it? What if someone finds the letter in the trash and publishes it on the internet? If it wasn't a crime before, does it become a crime when published?

My understanding about THIS case is that the man recorded the song a couple of years before it was ever heard by law enforcement. Should that make a difference.

By the way this is not always about police. I got a letter from a client in prison. Even though letters are supposed to be censored by prison officials before mailing, he got away with it as "legal mail." The letter said he was going to burn my house down with me inside and kill me if I survived the fire and he even stated my address in the letter. The man was in prison for arson serving a 33 year sentence after HE CHOSE to plead guilty rather than face a much longer sentence if he went to trial. I reported the letter to my local police and to the Department of Corrections and I moved. He was never charged with a new crime. But somewhat to my satisfaction he died in prison.

The difference there was he had a history of violence and threatened the same type of violence against me. In the story we are discussing, as far as I know the rapper had no history of violence and the threat had no other credibility.

Well, again, what history of violence did the guy have who posted the threat against the President in a UFO forum?

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 3:10 pm

Listen, you can feel free to laugh your ass of at me if you can show me one case where a musician was prosecuted for naming names in a threatening manner in a song.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..........logic 101.

You've been provided several examples of specific threats against government officials not protected by free speech and being ruled a crime. Threats that were made that weren't REMOTELY imminent. The only defense you've come up with is the asinine assertion that you can SHIELD a threat from prosecution by singing it.

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 3:11 pm

Well, again, what history of violence did the guy have who posted the threat against the President in a UFO forum?That is a very specific statute (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html) and it gives the Secret Service and the US Attorney broad latitude of enforcement.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 3:13 pm

That is a very specific statute (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html) and it gives the Secret Service and the US Attorney broad latitude of enforcement.

True, but the issue that has been raised is that such speech should, according to Tommy, be protected under the 1st Amendment............providing that you SING the threat. That singing it with a synthesized back-beat somehow turns a crime in to free speech. That is the root of the argument that Tommy and I are having.......because I find that argument absurd.

The other issues you've brought up are valid, such as the time frame and the manner in which the song became public.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 3:18 pm

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..........logic 101.

You've been provided several examples of specific threats against government officials not protected by free speech and being ruled a crime. Threats that were made that weren't REMOTELY imminent. The only defense you've come up with is the asinine assertion that you can SHIELD a threat from prosecution by singing it.

And yet I have provided numerous instances of rappers directly threatening policemen and politicians, which you conveniently ignore.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 3:29 pm

And yet I have provided numerous instances of rappers directly threatening policemen and politicians, which you conveniently ignore.

:)) :)) :))

Showing how someone got away with a something is NOT proving that it's unconstitutional to make it illegal! :)) :)) :)) :))

Let me break it down for you.....a THREAT that IS a crime does not become 'protected' simply by singing it. ;)

Since that is the root of your argument......your argument is silly.

LouC

August 2nd, 2009, 3:30 pm

I've got to find the lyrics and judge for myself.

Warning Graphic Lyrics Open At Own Risk

Here they are: Click LINK (http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=110682&catid=8)

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 4:13 pm

Warning Graphic Lyrics Open At Own Risk

Here they are: Click LINK (http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=110682&catid=8)I'm not buying the CD! Not my kind of entertainment. I just don't see the crime. That does not mean jury would not have convicted him. Anyway, he pled guilty so that pretty much ends the debate.

DLaw911

August 2nd, 2009, 4:16 pm

True, but the issue that has been raised is that such speech should, according to Tommy, be protected under the 1st Amendment............providing that you SING the threat. That singing it with a synthesized back-beat somehow turns a crime in to free speech. That is the root of the argument that Tommy and I are having.......because I find that argument absurd.

The other issues you've brought up are valid, such as the time frame and the manner in which the song became public.I don't think singing the threat (IN AND OF ITSELF) make it any less of a threat. Ever hear of a "singing telegram?" It's really fact dependent.

chip

August 2nd, 2009, 4:22 pm

It was from six months ago. Tell me how that rises to the imminent standard.

There is no imminent standard in the Florida law.

chip

August 2nd, 2009, 4:24 pm

And yet I have provided numerous instances of rappers directly threatening policemen and politicians, which you conveniently ignore.

Which has ZERO bearing on this case. Again, instead of running from the topic you posted stick to the facts of this case.

Talk2Bill

August 2nd, 2009, 4:41 pm

He didn't plead guilty. He stood mute, nolo contendre.

there is no real difference between the two.

Talk2Bill

August 2nd, 2009, 4:42 pm

There is no imminent standard in the Florida law.

even the courts have ruled that the threat need not be imminent.

LouC

August 2nd, 2009, 5:14 pm

I'm not buying the CD! Not my kind of entertainment. I just don't see the crime. That does not mean jury would not have convicted him. Anyway, he pled guilty so that pretty much ends the debate.

That is the thing, after reading what he was charged with, I don't understand how it applied to his actions.

His plea to me says he felt he was toast.

But why?

Had he gone to trial a jury would have to have to decide if what he wrote comprised a "true threat", which I feel would be very iffy, based on what little I know of the case.

The thing is I think there has to be more to this?

jimjames418

August 2nd, 2009, 5:25 pm

Songs are works of fiction. That's the difference.
Not all songs are fiction. Some tell of events that have occured.

Gordon Lightfoot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0DqPSF2fyo)

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 5:25 pm

I don't think singing the threat (IN AND OF ITSELF) make it any less of a threat. Ever hear of a "singing telegram?" It's really fact dependent.

Pretty much!

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 5:27 pm

I'm not buying the CD! Not my kind of entertainment. I just don't see the crime. That does not mean jury would not have convicted him. Anyway, he pled guilty so that pretty much ends the debate.

Again, the time frame and intent do matter a lot, and you've made a fairly persuasive argument on that front as to his apparent intent and the time frame.

Personally I think the PD would have done better than to make an issue of the rap song.....and simply nailed this clown on the Probation violations they could have no doubt found.......then it wouldn't have been a national issue.

That's what I would have done.........created a little mini-task force to find this guy breaking the law, play the song for the prosecutor so he knew the mindset of this clown, and hammer him on the other charges.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 5:31 pm

That is the thing, after reading what he was charged with, I don't understand how it applied to his actions.

His plea to me says he felt he was toast.

But why?

Had he gone to trial a jury would have to have to decide if what he wrote comprised a "true threat", which I feel would be very iffy, based on what little I know of the case.

The thing is I think there has to be more to this?

It didn't cost him anything to plead guilty......they offered him a concurrent sentence, meaning he wasn't going to do a day more for the guilty plea to the threat charge than he was already doing for his other charges......and he's already a felon, so what does he have to gain by fighting it?

I know a guy who was offered that kind of deal because the case against him was falling apart, most of the witnesses couldn't be found, etc........they offered him time served with a Felony conviction. He thought he could beat it, so he told them to pound sand......Jury gave him 14 years!

There's nothing more to this......he's just smart enough to know there's nothing to gain by fighting it.

sgtmac_46

August 2nd, 2009, 5:39 pm

In the interest of full disclosure I must admit a perverse enjoyment of violent rap music.......I enjoy listening to it if it's good.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 7:19 pm

There is no imminent standard in the Florida law.

Then it violates the First Amendment as it is incorporated to include all fifty states.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 7:21 pm

there is no real difference between the two.

Um, yes there is, one is pleading guilty and the other is standing mute.

Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese

August 2nd, 2009, 7:23 pm

Which has ZERO bearing on this case. Again, instead of running from the topic you posted stick to the facts of this case.

Please, you just want to keep this argument conveniently narrowed down to just Florida law, when all state governments are obliged to follow the First Amendment, because the amendment is incorporated to include the states.

And the standard in the First is "direct and imminent" and the Florida law as it was used violates that. The song was six months old.

DLaw911

August 3rd, 2009, 3:06 am

There is no imminent standard in the Florida law.That's the problem with the statute. It seems that the only bar to prosecuting an old threat is the statute of limitations.

So let's say a person writes out a threat, intends it to be a threat, and decides to think about it before publishing it. A few days later he decides he's cooled off. But the statute is clear. As soon as he wrote it, even though he never intended for anyone else to see it, he committed a felony. THAT'S what the law says.

Also assume the written threat is not discovered for almost 3 years. By then the guy has cooled off, changed his mind, and totally forgot to shred or burn the note. Even though there is no imminent threat and, in fact, the guy could be buddy/buddy with the person threatened in the note, he is STILL GUILTY under Florida law.

The crux of the problem is that is discourages people from writing diaries and personal notes to themselves for fear that someday, someone might read their notes and charge them with a crime. If the fact of THIS case are true, the rapper NEVER intended for the song to be published. He never gave permission for it to be posted on the web. It's not like he gave a concert and sang to 10,000 people who hate the police. Now the facts as reported might not be true, but apparently the song was two years old and if was intended to be a threat it would have been released two years earlier. I think that says a lot, especially SINCE making the recording the rapper went on to a gospel singing career.

I cannot second guess his lawyer. The guy might not have had a clue how to defend a first amendment case. Or maybe the offer made was too good to pass up.

Back to the statute (SEE WHATI UNDERLINED):

838.021 Corruption by threat against public servant.--
(1) Whoever unlawfully harms or threatens unlawful harm to any public servant, to his or her immediate family, or to any other person with whose welfare the public servant is interested, with the intent or purpose:
(a) To influence the performance of any act or omission which the person believes to be, or the public servant represents as being, within the official discretion of the public servant, in violation of a public duty, or in performance of a public duty.
(b) To cause or induce the public servant to use or exert, or procure the use or exertion of, any influence upon or with any other public servant regarding any act or omission which the person believes to be, or the public servant represents as being, within the official discretion of the public servant, in violation of a public duty, or in performance of a public duty.
(2) Prosecution under this section shall not require any allegation or proof that the public servant ultimately sought to be unlawfully influenced was qualified to act in the desired way, that the public servant had assumed office, that the matter was properly pending before him or her or might by law properly be brought before him or her, that the public servant possessed jurisdiction over the matter, or that his or her official action was necessary to achieve the person's purpose.
(3)(a) Whoever unlawfully harms any public servant or any other person with whose welfare the public servant is interested shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) Whoever threatens unlawful harm to any public servant or to any other person with whose welfare the public servant is interested shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.NOTE ADDED BY DLAW911 - A third degree felony has a maximum sentence of 5 years in prisonNOTE ADDED BY DLAW911 -And the crime is a "strike" under Florida law!!!
See http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0775/Sec084.HTMAs I read this statute it is clearly SPECIFIC INTENT. And from the facts of the case as reported I fail to see how the State could have proven the (underlined) specific intent.
OK so he might not be guilty of that law (except he pled guilty).
So let's look at another Florida law (criminal threats):
836.10 Written threats to kill or do bodily injury; punishment.--If any person writes or composes and also sends or procures the sending of any letter or inscribed communication, so written or composed, whether such letter or communication be signed or anonymous, to any person, containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, the person so writing or composing and so sending or procuring the sending of such letter or communication, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084This does not apply since it specifically requires the communication be in writing and be SENT TO the person threatened.