A San Diego Rapper Might Go to Jail For Releasing His Album

It’s shocking. He has no criminal record. Nothing in his lyrics say go out and commit a crime,” said Brian Watkins, Duncan’s laywer. “Nothing in his lyrics reference these shootings, yet they are holding him liable for conspiracy. There are huge constitutional issues.

Don't do what Tiny Doo did and the DA won't do this to you.

'Deputy District Attorney Anthony Campagna was blunt in his feelings for No Safety: "We're not just talking about a CD of anything, of love songs. We're talking about a CD [cover]... there is a revolver with bullets."'

Wow, a picture of a revolver with bullets.

It's almost as if the don't sell stuff like that legally all over the country, the practice of which happens to be avidly defended by the same type of people who probably agree with this ridiculous attack on the First Amendment.

I lol'd

It doesn't sound like an issue of free speech. So by that argument, if someone robs a 7/11 and then uses that money to buy into my poker table, and I stack him, I should go to jail since I inadvertently benefited from the robbery. We're all responsible for other people's crimes now, even if we didn't tell them to do it or assist them.

wrong. read again.

I'm a lot more bothered by the part of the piece where the author acts like questioning Eminem's obvious and career long misogyny is an attack on hip-hop.

Awesome that they can do this but not charge the people that made the guns or the bullets. #america

Do you believe that gang members generally acquire their guns legally?

Legally or not, the gun and ammo manufacturer have gained in some form or another as it's its product is being used. The rapper's CD is being produced, one imagines, 100% legally.

Guy buys glock, guy 'loses' glock. Glock used to kill another guy. Third and fourth guys buy glocks because glock advertises they are great purchases to defend against other glock owners.

How have they not been charged yet with benefitting from crime when studies show gun ownership increases crime? They are ripe for prosecution using the exact same logic as this rapper douche.

The law in question prohibits gang affiliates from profiting from the crimes committed by their gang. The purpose of this case is clearly not to attack 1st ammendment rights. It's purpose is to be able to cast a wider net when gang members commit a crime. In that sense it is very similar to other laws that target organized crime.

It also doesn't take much thinking to figure out the purpose of these charges being brought - they want to sever Tiny Poo or whatever his name is from the gang and get him to cooperate. Seems like a pretty reasonable approach to fighting gang crime to me and I am usually especially sensitive to these things.

No, I don't think trying to give a kid who has no criminal history a life sentence because of a crappy rap album he has on Spotify is reasonable in any sense of the word.

Are you in favour of expanding this approach to white collar crime? Bankers unconnected with the libor scandal got richer because of it, so let's start bringing some of these guys in for life sentences hoping they flip on people they know hoping that they know enough to stop prosecution for the crime of profiting from something indirectly which they had no knowledge or influence in.

Charging someone for making a rap album is somehow attacking organized crime

Gang crime yes. Though it's one of those good intentioned laws that anyone with 10 seconds worth of time could see how it's going to go bad. It effectively equally criminalizes everyone in a gang for one person's actions.

That is the problem with all these special laws that make certain exceptions to screw people out of their rights. Laws like this stupid law, and RICO, and the Patriot Act. They all sound like great ways to get THOSE GUYS, but eventually the system finds a way to turn them on everybody, and all of our rights just slowly erode even further.

Dids right on cue, someone innocent is facing a possible life sentence but HOLD THE HORSES someone literally cited an article saying it had a 'less than enthusiastic' take on hip hop. That's just brutal!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-...b_5703038.html

Universities haven't respected 1st amendment rights of individuals, not in the far left, for decades.

I always wondered what the Last Rapper Name on Earth would look like

And this whataboutery is relevant how?

Yeah, those far left universities and their pro-Israel ways....

Obviously this specific situation is awful, but in terms of "say good bye to the 1st ammendment" I'm not worried in the least. Again, while it's terrible, I don't see it as a 1st amendment flavor of terrible.

I'm more bothered by some yambag hip-hop writer excusing misogyny. As a fan of hip-hop, I'm very bothered the general refusal to address issues of misogyny and homophobia in the music.

I am pretty sure Dids is the living embodiment of the Tiger Woods South Park episode.

How is that a first amendment issue?