opinion essay rap music with violent lyrics should be banned

8 Most Valid Pros and Cons of Music Censorship

The practice of music censorship has been observed for years now but still remains to be a contentious issue. It can stem from a law imposed by a government or voluntary censorship done by private individuals on their music and lyrics.

Since some songs played on airplays and some comments of radio personalities have gained the ire of listeners at times, censorship in the music industry has become commonplace. Some radio stations do their share by censoring in different forms like resampling, repeating, distorting and skipping.

However, this controversy still remains to be debatable. There are proponents and opponents expressing their views on its legality and relevance to society. Here are right of the pros and cons worth considering.

List of Pros of Music Censorship

1. Music can highly influence young children and adults alike and regulating it can provide balance. Music is a very influential medium and can do so in a positive and negative way. Proponents of music censorship see it fit to ban songs with expletive lyrics like gangsta rap because of what most of this type of music implies. There are some lyrics that glamorize wrong doings and racism. By regulating the songs which are being played on the airways, people especially teens, will not be exposed to lyrics that have profanities and violence overtones.

2. It keeps the number of suicide attempts down. People, especially some parents, are for music censorship because of several instances of suicide attempts committed by teenagers. One parent talked about a son who killed himself while listening to the music of Marilyn Manson. He also added that two of his son’s friends also did the same thing. With censorship, lesser attempts of suicide will be possible.

3. It limits the exposure of people to sex, drugs and violence. Advocates of the censorship say that the music industry is so powerful that it is capable to produce songs which can entice the public to listen to materials which overtly advertise nudity, sex and drugs. Moreover, without censorship, irresponsible members of the industry which can include disc jockeys and radio program hosts will be free to play just any kind of music and air indecent content.

4. It cuts the power of record producers to come up immoral songs just to make money. Many producers in the music industry are not in favor of music censorship because of the music business being a million dollar industry. Proponents are pushing for censorship because they know that if such law is imposed and implemented, these music moguls will be reluctant to produce songs for the sake of profit per se but be more careful to downplay words so as to keep their albums selling.

List of Cons of Music Censorship

1. It is not the true solution. For some opponents, music censorship is not the solution. Instead, it should be literacy. They say that controversies are sometimes helpful because they can challenge individuals. If music is censored, they believe the challenge will be depleted. For them, the answer is to educate the people who listen to music about its message, particularly the children. Kids should be taught to understand what they are hearing, reading and seeing. This way, they will be given the chance to be critical of these things and be able to apply them in their lives.

2. It keeps children from the truth. For some who oppose music censorship, they say they do not agree with hiding reality from people, especially children. By censoring music, they think it keeps the children from learning the truth about life. For them, some lyrics of the songs are harsh realities which should be accepted and overcome. If these real situations mentioned in songs are kept from listeners, they will not be able to practice certain skills in life like coping with challenges in life.

3. It is a violation of the First Amendment. People oppose to music censorship say that this practice is a clear violation of the First Amendment which is about freedom of self-expression and speech. If censorship is made into law, it prevents artists from expressing themselves and conveying what message they want to get through to their listeners. They also point out that if censorship is meant to protect children from exposure from derogatory lyrics, they will not be prepared for things that happen outside of their homes. From their point of view, they regard censorship as a hindrance from doing so. They also added that children should be encouraged to express themselves and if there will be censorship in any form, be it music or poetry, these kids will not be able to learn self-expression since it is presented as something that needs to be censored.

4. It gives an impression that people are not mature and responsible enough. Critics of music censorship say that people have the right to listen to the kind of songs they want. Also, they are the ones responsible to stop listening to songs they find too offensive or violent. They also believe that any individual above 18 years of age is mature enough to know what music to appreciate or not. And for children, parents should be the ones to monitor and keep their kids safe. They should take time to know what their sons and daughters listen to and read. Moreover, children will be learning about sex, violence and drugs from other means and at certain points of their lives. This is why for critics, music censorship is unnecessary.

Whether music censorship is necessary or not will always be an issue with contentions from different groups. Perhaps it is a matter left for the public to decide. Although there are songs which have inappropriate lyrics, there are also some which speak of the truth whether politically and socially. These are things that should stir the public’s awareness. Music censorship can be a positive thing if only it is done with limitations. Moreover, some artists and record companies already censor themselves. At the end of the day, the buying public is the one which decides if a song is worth listening to or not.

• Newsletters
• Help Center
• Readers Write
• Get Schooled
• Mike Luckovich
• Real Life with Nedra Rhone
• Torpy at Large

Opinion: Rap lyrics shouldn’t be used as crime evidence

Rap is a lyrical expression of social, cultural, and political issues in present society. Unsurprisingly, rap music is the most popular genre of music and features predominantly Black artists highlighting the controversial issues facing their communities. The lyrics are frequently written in the first-person, often filled with profanity, drugs and depictions of gang-related violence.

Across the country, prosecutors are now using metaphorical rap lyrics to prosecute its authors.

The Fulton County District Attorney indicted alleged gang members, including Grammy award winner Young Thug, and quoted their rap lyrics in the indictment. Prosecutors are using those lyrics to connect the artists to the crimes. Prosecutors are also interpreting lyrics as autobiographical confessions, instead of what the lyrics are — fictional language. As a result, the lyrical expression of rappers is now a prosecutorial tool being manipulated to take away their freedom.

The First Amendment protects free speech and expressive conduct, including artistic expression. Rap is a form of artistic expression to share social and political commentary. UGA professor Andrea Dennis, the leading expert on this issue, said, “Rap music lyrics are not simply rhyming poems or declarative sentences, as many individuals believe. Rather, rap lyrics contribute to a complex form of creative verbal expression deserving of careful analysis.” Rap lyrics articulate the social story of low-income Black neighborhoods, exposing the underground realm of crime and violence to the public. The United States Supreme Court said, “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection.”

Credit: contributed

Prosecutors are attempting to introduce rap lyrics to prove motive or intent. Creating art by writing lyrics is not a crime, a wrong, or a bad act. This is a thinly veiled attempt by the state to attack a defendant’s character and show propensity —”the defendant rapped about it so he must have done what he is being charged with now.”

Importantly, it cannot be understated how much race plays a role in how the public views the lyrics and the authors, creating stereotypes that construct racist perceptions of the expressive music. There are multiple studies on how rap lyrics can create stereotypes of Black men as violent, which becomes extremely prejudicial in a criminal jury trial.

In 1999, Psychologist Stuart Fischoff conducted a study in which he gave participants biographical information about a young Black male. Some participants were given sexually explicit rap lyrics allegedly written by the young black male. The study showed that the participants who heard the lyrics were more likely to believe that the young Black male committed the crime.

The prejudicial effect of rap lyrics has negative racial connotations. Psychologist Carrie Fried conducted a study where she used the violent lyrics of folk group Kingston Trio’s song “Bad Man’s Blunder.” The participants were not told who the artist was or what genre the lyrics belonged to. Half of the participants were told that the lyrics were from a country song, and the other half were told the lyrics were from a rap song. The group that was told it was from a rap song believed the artist was dangerous.

There is a clear distinction between the perceptions of rap compared to other genres. The Supreme Court of New Jersey said in a 2014 opinion:

“One would not presume that Bob Marley, who wrote the well-known song ‘I Shot the Sheriff,’ actually shot a sheriff, or that Edgar Allan Poe buried a man beneath his floorboards, as depicted in his short story ‘The Tell-Tale Heart,’ simply because of their respective artistic endeavors on those subjects. Defendant’s lyrics should receive no different treatment.”

In State v. Skinner , the New Jersey high court reversed Vonte Skinner’s conviction of attempted murder because the prosecutors should not have used the rap lyrics as evidence in the trial. The same goes for Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” (“just killed a man, put a gun against his head, pulled my trigger, now he’s dead”) or Johnny Cash’s “Folsom Prison Blues” (“I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die”).

The double standard is undeniable.

The Georgia Attorney General created the Georgia Anti-Gang Network in 2018 and recently was given authority to prosecute criminal gang activity statewide. Interestingly, the Georgia Attorney General — along with other state attorney generals — recently sent a letter to Washington, D.C., using the First Amendment as an offense shield tactic to shut down the Disinformation Governance Board enacted by President Joe Biden, much of which applies to voter fraud and the January 6 insurrection. The letter said the Disinformation Board would infringe upon the First Amendment rights enjoyed by citizens and would silence Americans who wish to express their views. The letter, supported by the Georgia Attorney General, says it is unconstitutional and un-American.

The First Amendment that the Georgia Attorney General used to shield the rights of predominantly white voters is simultaneously being used as a sword to prosecute young Black men.

To [w]rap things up, the prosecution of rap artists is affecting one class of people — young Black men. In cases across the country, prosecutors are using “motive and intent” as a disguise for introducing these lyrics to portray the defendant as a criminal. This bad character evidence is even worse given how juries prejudicially view defendants with explicative rap lyrics.

Earlier this year, the New York Senate introduced a bill (S7527) which would limit the admissibility of rap lyrics. Georgia and other states should follow suit and pass a bill excluding the use of constitutional artistic expression in a criminal trial. Otherwise, prosecutors will continue to use rap lyrics as non-Mirandized confessions.

If the stated goal of every prosecutor is to conduct a fair trial and to seek the truth, then prejudicial rap lyrics should not be allowed in the courtroom during a criminal jury trial. As the gatekeepers to the justice system, winning should not be prosecutors’ priority.

“If you don’t know, now you know.” – The Notorious B.I.G.

Devin Rafus is a senior associate at Atlanta’s Arora Law Firm.

About the Author

Credit: Ben Hendren

Credit: James D. Love

Credit: Alex Sanz

Credit: Courtesy City of College Park Government Facebook

Credit: [email protected]

Credit: Olivia Bowdoin

Credit: Handout

Can violent rap lyrics be evidence of criminality or does the law misunderstand music's biggest genre?

In 2014, the most powerful judge in the United States did something fairly unexpected.

He quoted Eminem .

"Dada make a nice bed for mommy at the bottom of the lake. Tie a rope around a rock … There goes mama splashing in the water, no more fighting with dad."

Yep. That's a line from 97 Bonnie and Clyde, from the rapper's massive 1997 album The Slim Shady LP.

John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was not (unfortunately) gearing up for a career change.

His court was hearing arguments in a case about a guy who had been jailed for threatening his ex-wife in what he claimed were the lyrics to a rap song.

The Eminem track features a guy talking euphemistically to his baby daughter about how he killed her mother because she left him for another man.

So, Roberts was trying to parse a particularly thorny issue: if you make threats in the lyrics of a song, is that artistic expression, or a crime?

And in finding somewhere to draw that line, are the idiosyncrasies of hip hop — and the identities of the people who generally make it — getting overlooked?

Hip hop lyrics and the courts

Rap lyrics are increasingly being used as evidence in criminal trials in the US and Canada, according to recent research and a forthcoming book.

That's despite concerns the practice reinforces racist stereotypes and relies on a misunderstanding of the genre, which these days is the world's most popular.

In September, facing a lengthy jail term over his involvement with the Nine Trey Gangsta Bloods, New York rapper and Instagram celebrity Daniel Hernandez, aka Tekashi 6ix9ine, turned state's witness, telling a US federal court about the gang's alleged crimes.

During his testimony, prosecutors showed his music videos — at one point asking him if the guns featured were real — and quoted lyrics to his viral hit GUMMO, which can't really be repeated on this website.

The journalist Matthew Russell Lee was in the courtroom:

This came a few months after Chance The Rapper , 21 Savage , and Killer Mike — all major figures in hip hop — took the unusual step of writing to the US Supreme Court to school its justices in the history of rap music.

They were doing so in support of Jamal Knox , a Philadelphia rapper jailed for threatening police officers in a song.

The rappers and Knox's lawyers were hoping the US Supreme Court would overturn that conviction by finding that you have to read hip hop lyrics in the context of that genre and its associated culture.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided not to take the case, leaving murky the definition of what, in a rap lyric or elsewhere, constitutes a "true threat", the kind of speech not protected by the United States constitution's powerful First Amendment.

Knox's lyrics 'primarily portray violence towards police'

In 2012, Knox, who uses the stage name Mayhem Mal, and a friend had been charged for alleged drug and gun possession.

Before their case made it to court, they released a video for a song that drew on their experience. The title might feel familiar: it was a homage to NWA's anti-authoritarian classic (let's just say it rhymes with "duck the police").

In the song, Knox made reference to the arresting police officers in case, and used phrases like "let's kill these cops cuz they don't do us no good ". Other lines talked about knowing where the officers lived and what time they clocked off work.

Within days of the clip being posted on YouTube and Facebook, Knox was arrested and charged with making terroristic threats and witness intimidation.

The police involved testified they feared for their lives, and one said it was partly why he decided to quit his job and leave Pittsburgh.

Knox was found guilty. He appealed, but that was knocked back, too, with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania saying the lyrics:

"... do not merely address grievances about police-community relations or generalised animosity toward the police. They do not include political, social, or academic commentary, nor are they facially satirical or ironic. "Rather, they primarily portray violence toward the police, ostensibly due to the officers' interference with [Knox]'s activities."

Violent rap lyrics, from NWA to Eminem

Knox's lawyers argued you needed to understand something about hip hop to understand the case, and a good place to start would be that original NWA song, from 1988.

Here's a sample of the lyrics:

Beat a police out of shape And when I'm finished, bring the yellow tape To tape off the scene of the slaughter

Hip hop is known for its bluster and bravado. Rappers make wild claims and accusations and, like folk singers before them, inhabit fictional characters.

Knox's high-profile supporters say the work of NWA, Eminem and others — they even mention comedian Kathy Griffin and her controversial comments about Donald Trump — cannot be treated like a "true threat".

"The outcome of this case is of great concern to the music industry, where artists often reference specific persons and real-world events alongside violent lyrics and themes — often to worldwide critical acclaim," they said in their court submission.

"Rap music — which draws on many artistic traditions, including violent language, hyperbole, and basing stories off larger-than-life antagonists — is especially vulnerable to erroneous and underprotective 'true threats' analysis."

The idea that hip hop imagery should not be taken literally is backed up by US-based academics Charis Kubrin and Erik Nielson.

In their 2014 paper, published in the journal Race and Justice , they wrote:

"The near-universal use of stage names within rap music is the clearest signal that rappers are fashioning a character, yet the first-person narrative form and rappers' frequent claims that they are "keepin' it real" (providing authentic accounts of themselves and "the hood") lend themselves to easy misreading by those unfamiliar with rappers' complex and creative manipulation of identity, both on and off the stage."

Andrea Dennis, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law who has researched the phenomenon of rap lyrics being used as evidence, said grandstanding carried over to rappers' use of social media.

"There is that performative aspect," she told the ABC. "They are creating personas; they feel free to engage in hyperbole and braggadocio."

Which brings us back to the Tekashi 6ix9ine trial, which ended on Thursday with the conviction of his two former gang associates.

While the rapper said he was part of the Nine Trey Gangsta Bloods, he was never initiated — for that he would have had to "cut someone's face" or commit some other act of violence.

Instead, he just gave them financial support in exchange for the valuable street cred that comes with a gang affiliation.

Hernandez has a lengthy criminal record, including for selling drugs, and is facing nearly 50 years in prison after pleading guilty to gun and drug-trafficking offences. He also admitted to paying a gang member to shoot at the rapper Chief Keef.

Nevertheless, his testimony revealed parts of his tough stage persona were fictitious .

Does the law understand hip hop?

These cases suggest hip hop remains misunderstood, particularly by people who occupy positions of power, says barrister Greg Barns.

"How does the law deal with cultures which might be alien to it," he asked.

"We have judges who come from particular backgrounds, generally quite wealthy backgrounds … in this particular case [involving Knox] individual judges have to get their heads around what is in the meaning of these words given their context."

Many critics of using rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials have suggested the practice is inherently racist .

In a 2016 study , Professor David Tanovich of the University of Windsor looked at the issue in Canada and found courts faced the "very real danger that rap lyrics will trigger and inflame stereotypical assumptions" among judges and juries — about the genre and the kind of people who work within it.

In a case in New Jersey in 2014, the violent rap lyrics of a man charged with attempted murder were not valuable, and too prejudicial, to be admitted as evidence.

"One would not presume that Bob Marley, who wrote the well-known song I Shot the Sheriff, actually shot a sheriff," the judges said in their reasoning .

Professors Dennis and Nielson argue something similar in their new book Rap on Trial , in which they have identified at least 500 cases in the US alone of rap lyrics being used in criminal trials, at times leading to inappropriate or wrongful convictions.

Few would say Johnny Cash's famous lyric "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" was evidence of the country singer's murderous leanings, they write.

"It is quite clear to us that this [rap] is the only fictional art form that is used in this way," Professor Dennis said, adding that race was an essential factor in the story.

There are very limited examples of it being appropriate, Professor Dennis said. For example, when a lyric accurately describes a specific crime.

"Usually, what's happening is the lyrics are somewhat generic — talking about general crime or very common types of behaviour that almost any rap artist might talk about," she said.

In Australia, Mr Barns said, where freedom-of-speech protections are much weaker, artists face greater pressures from the law — he mentions the Bill Henson obscenity case as an example — though we are yet to see a similar case involving rap lyrics in Australia.

"If we go through history, there is a lot of language of violence in music, in art, in the written word," he said.

"If we were going to start prosecuting people on the basis of what they wrote, given the context of what they are writing, which is fictional or fanciful, then we would be in real trouble as a society."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Putin wants the kremlin to 'take control' of rap music before it ruins russia.

It's the 864th-most popular song in bars and clubs — but number one in gyms

Snoop, Dre, Cypress Hill: How hip hop went mainstream — and embraced weed — in the 1990s

• Arts, Culture and Entertainment
• Law, Crime and Justice
• Music (Arts and Entertainment)
• United States

“Why Rap Should Be Banned”: Fallacy Analysis Essay

Rap is a reason for human degradation, why rap should be banned.

In the 21st century, the popularity of rap music among people of different ages seems to be high as never which speaks of gradual human degradation (False Cause, 1). It cannot be another way, because all rappers are uneducated drug addicts who have no time to think about what they sing (Hasty Generation, 2). Sexual violence, hooliganism, aggression, and cultural decay are among the adverse effects of rap music on society. Therefore, it is no wonder that rap should be banned worldwide, and governmental leaders should rather spend their time thinking about maintaining a stable economy and reducing costs on healthcare (Red Herring, 3).

To begin with, one should mention that listening to rap is like drinking hydrochloric acid as both rap and acid adversely affect a person (Faulty Analogy, 4). However, hydrochloric acid is generally considered to be poisonous, whereas people are only to learn negative outcomes of rap music. One of these outcomes is aggression that a person feels after listening to rap. When listening to Jay-Z, I notice that I often become very irritated and aggressive. Rap should be banned because other people should not feel the same aggression (Non-Sequitur, 5). Mother Teresa is a famous example of a compassionate, sympathetic person who dedicated her life to others. One may doubt that she listened to rap, so rap should be banned for people to become more sympathetic (Anecdotal Fallacy, 6).

Secondly, it leaves no doubt that rap music promotes racism. Everyone knows that Eminem has gone a long way to become famous, and now he is perhaps the only white rapper among black ones. Therefore, one may note that there are racial biases and disparities in the rap industry. People who listen to rap music do this to show they are racists (Straw Man Fallacy, 7). Therefore, banning rap music may be viewed as a crucial step in fighting racism in the US.

Thirdly, it should be taken into account that rappers set a poor example for adults and their children. If parents allow their children to listen to rap, kids will become aggressive and vulgar. When these kids grow up, they will become drug addicts, alcoholics, and smokers (Slippery Slope Fallacy, 8). Therefore, people who are proponents of rap music say that they are not against teenagers taking drugs, smoking, and drinking alcohol (Straw Man Fallacy, 7). Finally, there is no material on why rap should not be banned, and this is one more reason why it should be banned (The Burden of Proof Fallacy, 9).

People should stop listening to rap because it is silly to listen to it (Circular Reasoning, 10). Of course, some people may have a different opinion. But do we need to take their opinion into account and thus encourage them to argue? One may note that there is enough hostility in this world (Equivocation, 11). Opinions of people who hold the view that rap music should not be censored cannot be taken seriously as they have no music taste at all (Ad Hominem, 12). As my friend says, these people have distorted auditory receptors, which speaks to the importance of banning rap (Appeal to Authority, 13).

To sum up, one may assume that rap should be banned, or the cultural crisis will continue, and the culture will hopelessly die (The Either / Or Fallacy, 14). In the essay, several particularly negative effects of rap music on people have been discussed. We can either agree that rap music should be strictly prohibited, or be ready to face even greater levels of violence, crime, and racism in the future (False Dilemma, 15).

Faulty Causality

• “In the 21st century, the popularity of rap music among people of different ages seems to be high as never which obviously speaks of gradual human degradation”
• The argument that human degradation happens due to people listening to rap music cannot be adequately proven

Hasty Generation

• “…all rappers are uneducated drug addicts who have no time to think about what they sing”
• The conclusion that all rappers are “uneducated drug addicts” has no evidence at all

Red Herring

• “Therefore, it is no wonder that rap should be banned worldwide, and governmental leaders should rather spend their time thinking about maintaining stable economic and reducing costs on healthcare”
• I divert the attention from the original issue by focusing on other things

Faulty Analogy

• “…listening to rap is like drinking hydrochloric acid as both rap and acid adversely affect a person”
• It is a stupid comparison between listening to rap and drinking hydrochloric acid

Non-Sequitur

• “Rap should be banned, because other people should not feel the same aggression”
• There is no link between my aggression and the aggression of other people

Anecdotal Fallacy

• “One may doubt that she listened to rap, so rap should be banned in order for people to become more sympathetic”
• I use an isolated example instead of solid evidence

Straw Man Fallacy

• “People who listen to rap music do this to show they are racists”
• “Therefore, people who are proponents of rap music actually say that they are not against teenagers taking drugs, smoking, and drinking alcohol”
• I misrepresent arguments of people who listen to rap

Slippery Slope Fallacy

• “When these kids grow up, they will become drug addicts, alcoholics, and smokers”
• I suggest that one step will lead to more negative steps. I also exaggerate the future consequences of listening to rap music

The Burden of Proof Fallacy

• “Finally, there is no material on why rap should not be banned, and this is one more reason why it should be banned”
• When making a claim, I put the burden of proof on another party

Circular Reasoning

• “People should stop listening to rap because it is silly to listen to it”
• I repeat an argument that I assumed beforehand

Equivocation

• “Of course, there are people who may have a different opinion. But do we really need to take their opinion into account and thus encourage them to argue? One may note that there is enough hostility in this world”
• I used a keyword in an ambiguous way in two portions of the argument
• “Opinions of people who hold the view that rap music should not be censored cannot be taken seriously as they have no music taste at all and, apart from that, distorted auditory receptors”
• Instead of discussing the position of people who listen to rap, I insult them

Appeal to the Authority

• “As my friend says, these people have distorted auditory receptors, which speaks to the importance of banning rap”
• In this case, I cite an irrelevant or false authority

The Either / Or Fallacy

• “…rap should be banned, or the cultural crisis will continue, and the culture will hopelessly die”
• I present only two alternatives, but other choices also exist

False Dilemma

• “We can either agree that rap music should be strictly prohibited, or be ready to face even greater levels of violence, crime, and racism in the future”
• I assert that there are only two mutually exclusive outcomes.
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 19). "Why Rap Should Be Banned": Fallacy Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-rap-should-be-banned-fallacy-analysis/

""Why Rap Should Be Banned": Fallacy Analysis." IvyPanda , 19 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/why-rap-should-be-banned-fallacy-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '"Why Rap Should Be Banned": Fallacy Analysis'. 19 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. ""Why Rap Should Be Banned": Fallacy Analysis." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-rap-should-be-banned-fallacy-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . ""Why Rap Should Be Banned": Fallacy Analysis." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-rap-should-be-banned-fallacy-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . ""Why Rap Should Be Banned": Fallacy Analysis." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/why-rap-should-be-banned-fallacy-analysis/.

• Old School of Rap: Songs’ Themes and Melodic Tunes
• Run-D.M.C, Raising Hell: Album Review
• Hip Hop Infiltrates Asian Music Industry
• Free Improvisation and Experimental Music
• Music Concrete and Post-War Technology Development
• Gender Disparity: Women in Jazz
• American Popular Music History
• Social Constructions and Hip Hop Music

Rap music and threats of violence: A case for the Supreme Court to decide

Brechner Eminent Scholar in Mass Communication, University of Florida

Disclosure statement

Clay Calvert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Florida provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Kendrick Lamar won a Pulitzer Prize last year and Eminem set a record in 2019 for streams on Spotify. But the acceptance and embrace of rap music in mainstream culture isn’t shared by everyone – and that sometimes includes the police.

Controversy between the police and rappers has gone on at least since N.W.A. released “ F–k tha Police ” in 1988. In fact, scholars Charis E. Kubrin and Erik Nielson contend that “to this day, rap is largely defined by its hostility toward law enforcement.”

Now the Supreme Court , including one justice nicknamed “ the Notorious RBG ” – a reference to the rapper called “Notorious B.I.G.” – has been asked to address that hostility and what it means via the case of Knox v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania .

As director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida, I’ve often written about the complex relationship between rap music, free speech and threats of violence.

The Supreme Court has discretion not to take the case. It could decide whether to do so within the next few weeks. If it does choose to hear the case, it could have profound implications for freedom of speech in the United States. That’s because it concerns when people can go to prison for making statements that some considering threatening.

Protected or not?

Last August, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld Jamal Knox’s conviction on the charge of making terroristic threats against two Pittsburgh police officers in a rap song he posted on YouTube.

Taking a page out of N.W.A.’s playbook, he had also called his song “F–k the Police” and directed it at the officers, who had earlier arrested him and another rapper on drug charges.

So what did Knox say in his rap that was interpreted as a threat and landed him in trouble with the law? Here’s a snippet in which he names the two officers:

This first verse is for Officer Zeltner and all you fed force b—-es/And Mr. Kosko, you can suck my d–k you keep on knocking my riches/You want beef, well cracker I’m wit it, that whole department can get it/All these soldiers in my committee gonna f–k over you b—-es/F–k the, f–k the police, b–ch, I said it loud.

This may offend, but as the Supreme Court wrote in 2017, “speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” For example, the Court protected the right to protest the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket reading “F–k the Draft” in a public courthouse.

Knox now wants the nation’s highest court to hear his case. He argues his lyrics constitute free speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

While the First Amendment safeguards many types of speech, the Supreme Court holds that it does not protect true threats of violence .

The problem is that the Court has not clearly defined just what constitutes a “true threat.”

As I’ve said elsewhere , “if there’s one First Amendment doctrine that screams out the loudest for clarification, it may well be true threats.”

The question in the Knox case is not whether the speech offends, but whether it is an unlawful threat of violence.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded it was a threat, partly because Jamal Knox identified specific officers by name and because the lyrics included the line “let’s kill these cops cuz they don’t do us no good.”

Is this a threat or just a young man in his 20s venting anger at government officials through a creative medium known for such rhetoric?

The court’s opportunity

As Knox’s attorneys argue in their Supreme Court brief , the Court has not clarified “whether, to establish that a statement is an unprotected ‘true threat,’ the government must show objectively that a ‘reasonable person’ would regard the statement as threatening, or whether it is enough to prove only the speaker’s subjective intent to threaten.”

In other words, the lawyers are asking if the test of whether something is a true threat should be how a reasonable person would interpret a message like a rap song. Or does the actual intent of the speaker make a difference? Or is it some combination of both?

And if the state of the mind of the speaker does matter, does he just have to be aware that some people might find it threatening or does he actually need to want people to find it threatening?

These are difficult but important questions. People sometimes say things that are not intended to be taken literally.

A jury, in turn, may be confused in sorting it all out.

This is particularly true with rap music. As one scholarly article by Adam Dunbar and Charis E. Kubrin notes, “jurors may not understand or fully appreciate rap music’s genre conventions and instead may conflate an artist’s lyrics with his or her true personality.”

A scholarly experiment by Dunbar, Kubrin and Nicholas Scurich suggests that the exact same lyrics were taken more literally by participants “when characterized as rap compared with country.”

Technology compounds the problem. Some people may expect to find hyperbole or exaggerated expression on certain online forums such as Twitter. We live in an age of instant outrage on social media, and sometimes that outrage may appear threatening.

The danger is that a person could wind up in prison for something he intended as a joke but that a recipient interpreted differently.

Resolving what constitutes a true threat and just how a true threat should be determined has importance far beyond rap music. It extends to tweets, texts and Facebook posts in the digital age.

With Jamal Knox’s case, the Supreme Court can use the opportunity to clarify what constitutes an unprotected threat of violence.

The Court, however, typically hears only about 80 cases each year involving full oral argument before the justices.

I believe that this case is important and should be heard because, as Knox’s attorneys argue, the definition of a true threat “implicates the validity of countless convictions under myriad federal and state threat statutes.”

• Free speech
• US Supreme Court
• First Amendment
• criminal threat
• Protected speech

Events and Communications Coordinator

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

• Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

Should music lyrics be censored for violence and exploitation?

Available online, at the library.

Music Library

More options.

• Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
• Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

• Lyrics with violence and exploitation harm young people / Lloyd Eby
• Censoring and restricting music lyrics harm society / Paul D. Fischer
• Youths from dysfunctional families identify with violence and exploitation in music lyrics / Mary Eberstadt
• Lyrics with violence and exploitation should not be protected by the First Amendment / John F. Borowski
• The recording industry should take responsibility for violence in lyrics / Michael Rich
• Hip-hop and rap lyrics contain gratuitous violence and cause harm / John H. McWhorter
• Hip-hop and rap lyrics are unfairly criticized for violence / Edward Rhymes
• Hip-hop and rap lyrics offer positive messages / Sara Libby
• Banning words from hip-hop and rap music would be beneficial / John H. McWhorter
• Banning words from hip-hop and rap music would not be beneficial / Alexander Billet
• Advisory labels and recording industry self-regulation are effective / Hilary Rosen
• Advisory labels and recording industry self-regulation may not be effective / Mike Osegueda.

Bibliographic information

Browse related items.

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

Document Journal

Science proves banning violent music is total bs.

Text by Caroline Christie

Drill, juggalos, death metal—studies have shown that listening to violent music can actually make us happy, so why do authorities continue to censor it?

For the past couple of years, London’s Met police in have been waging a war against drill—a type of rap that originated in Chicago but has gained serious traction in some areas of the British capital. Since we covered the issue back in May last year, the situation has worsened. Drill rappers are facing jail time for simply performing their songs, and YouTube has taken down dozens of videos, raising concerns about how the criminal justice system is blurring the lines between freedom of expression and inciting hatred.

Some drill acts have been involved in violence; some used their lyrics to explicitly incite it, and used their music videos to harangue rival gang members. But drill is hardly the sole cause of London’s violence crime problem. And turning it into a scapegoat only perpetuates that problem.

Scientists at Macquarie University’s music lab recently tried to answer the age-old question—do violent lyrics desensitize people? Researchers asked participants to listen to death metal music—specifically, Bloodbath’s cannibalism-themed track “Eaten”—to see if they then became numb to violent images. They didn’t find fans of the music to be any more desensitized than non-fans. “[Death metal] fans are nice people, they’re not going to go out and hurt someone” lead researcher Prof. Bill Thompsons concluded. “If fans of violent music were desensitized to violence, which is what a lot of parent groups, religious groups, and censorship boards are worried about, then they wouldn’t show this same bias,” he told the BBC. “But the fans showed the very same bias towards processing these violent images as those who were not fans of this music.”

Above The Fold

Robin broadbent’s inanimate portraits, paskal’s theory of design, falls the shadow: maria grazia chiuri designs for works & process, designer turned artist jean-charles de castelbajac is the pope of pop.

Serious violent crime in the UK is a real issue; last year it rose 19% across the country and currently, homicides in London are at a 10-year high. The issue isn’t exclusive to the London drill scene. An investigation by British newspaper The Times recently revealed that violent crime in the UK is surging four times faster outside of London as it is inside of the capital, and the UK drill scene, which began in a region of south London in 2012, has pretty much stayed within the confines of the city ever since.

Drill has become part of the moral panic puzzle, perpetuating an old wives’ tale that listening to violent lyrics breeds violent behavior, and steeping it with racial stereotypes. Earlier this month, researchers the University of Missouri in Columbia discovered that pop music is just as violent as hip-hop and rap. They looked at violent and misogynistic lyrics and found that run of the mill pop is a bigger perpetrator. One example they used was Maroon 5’s “Wake Up Call,” a song about a man shooting his girlfriend’s lover after finding them together. “One wonders why pop music is not as maligned as hip-hop/rap for its communication of violence,’ the report commented.

Vilifying one very specific genre of rap isn’t just ignorant, it’s counterproductive. It wilfully ignores facts in favor of prejudice masking as a public good.

When the Met commissioner Cressida Dick asked Youtube to remove drill music videos, it was because she associated their lyrics with the surge in stabbings and murders, and ignored a much wider societal issue. Just over a week ago, Dick was forced to acknowledge a link between violent crime and the reduced number of police officers in the force in a radio interview. “I think that what we all agree on is that in the last few years police officer numbers have gone down a lot,” she said . “There’s been a lot of other cuts in public services, there has been more demand for policing and therefore there must be something and I have consistently said that.”

It looks like the police had better keep their own house in order before they start censoring others.

Music-made memories, from the mind of C.FRIM

Club document: celebrating ss24 with erykah badu, michèle lamy, and editor-in-chief nick vogelson, document launches spring/summer 2024: new mythologies, at pageant’s second annual gala, experimental performance reigns supreme.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Rap music should not be censored (from violence in the media, p 175-177, 1995, carol wekesser, ed. -- see ncj-160238), additional details.

P.O. Box 9187 , Farmington Hills , MI 48333-9187 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

Search This Blog

Checking the time is important, opinion essay: should rap music with violent lyrics be banned, post a comment, popular posts from this blog.

You were my heatwave

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Rap music used as evidence in scores of trials in England and Wales, study finds

Researchers say issue ‘urgently needs scrutiny’ after rap and drill music used as evidence cases covering 252 defendants over three years

Rap and drill music was used as prosecution evidence for serious charges including alleged gang-related murders in cases covering 252 defendants in England and Wales over a three-year period, a study has found.

The researchers at the University of Manchester, who found 68 cases involving rap evidence covering the 252 charged individuals, said the issue “urgently needs scrutiny” as there was no meaningful regulation nor even monitoring of how the criminal justice system used rap as criminal evidence.

Rap is not normally used by prosecutors as direct evidence of intention or confession, such as a lyric that suggests personal involvement in the specific facts of the crime, but rather used as indirect or “bad character” evidence to suggest violent mindset, intention to commit serious harm or gang membership, the report said.

The report, Compound Injustice , said 84% of defendants were minority ethnic people, with 66% of those Black, compared with 4% of the overall English and Welsh population, with a further 12% Black or mixed.

Furthermore, 53% of cases were joint enterprise prosecutions, the controversial legal doctrine that enables prosecutors to charge multiple people with a single crime.

At the time of trial, 15% of defendants in the cases were children – 17 years old and under – and 67% were young people, 18-24 years old.

The researchers, Eithne Quinn, Erica Kane and Will Pritchard, said their research had uncovered very concerning processes which risked innocent people being convicted of the most serious crimes.

“Our findings are deeply troubling, and support the view that the marshalling of rap evidence in criminal cases encourages police and prosecutors to further increase the number of people charged as secondaries under already-egregious secondary liability laws,” they said.

The findings echo calls from the campaign group Art Not Evidence , which was created at the end of 2022 by a group of lawyers, academics and music industry professionals who want to constrain the use of police officers as rap experts to interpret evidence against a defendant.

The report cites a joint enterprise case in which 12 people were charged with murder despite there being only one principal offender suspect .

A gang narrative was mounted by the prosecution that relied heavily on a single rap video to suggest gang membership, motivation and intention to commit serious violence.

The video was played in full in court, even though none of the 12 on trial rapped in the video nor had any role in producing it. Three defendants appeared as extras in the video.

“This case, along with illustrating the kind of tenuous ways that prejudicial rap ‘evidence’ can be used, crystallises case features from our dataset of rap cases: young, Black, male defendants, including children, in large group prosecutions facing the most serious charges in an allegedly ‘gang related’ joint enterprise case,” the report said.

Commenting on the findings, Liz Fekete, the director of the Institute of Race Relations, said: “Once again, three of the best researchers on the subject are doing what the state refuses to do.

“They have scrutinised the data on rap prosecutions, exposed the racism that lies within the law – particularly the joint enterprise doctrine – and suggested targeted reforms to end the wide-ranging criminalisation of Black expressive culture.”

To create the dataset, the team used media reporting, legal databases, academic research and professional networks to look for live cases between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2023 in England and Wales in which rap music lyrics, videos or sound recordings were used by police and prosecutors.

Tyrone Steele, deputy legal director at Justice, the law reform and human rights charity, said: “Every child and young person deserves to have their voice heard and their creativity nourished.

“Yet the criminal justice system routinely disregards this basic standard for Black children, regarding their musical expression as criminal and suspicious. The consequences are clear, with families broken by prosecutions based on dubious evidence that is treated distinctly differently to other forms of art.

“Rap music is one of the most popular genres of music in the UK – it’s time to end the marginalisation and punishment of its creators through its use as prosecution evidence.”

A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson said: “There is nothing criminal about enjoying or making rap or drill music.

“However, like any genre of music, it may be used in a prosecution if it discloses relevant evidence of criminal activity.

“Every case that is referred to us is considered on its individual facts and merits.”

• UK criminal justice
• Black British culture

Most viewed

Should songs with violent lyrics be banned?

Browse Content

Active bloggers, should rap music with **** lyrics be banned.

HBCU CONNECT

Allene W. Leflore

Orders of are accepted for higher levels only (University, Master's, PHD). Please pay attention that your current order level was automatically changed from High School/College to University.

Finished Papers

PenMyPaper: a student-friendly essay writing website

We, at PenMyPaper, are resolute in delivering you professional assistance to write any kind of academic work. Be it marketing, business, or healthcare sector, we can prepare every kind of draft efficiently, meeting all the points of the question brief. Also, we believe in 'research before drafting'. Any work without ample research and evidence will be a flawed one and thus we aim to make your drafts flawless with exclusive data and statistics. With us, you can simply relax while we do the hard work for you.

Service Is a Study Guide

Our cheap essay writing service aims to help you achieve your desired academic excellence. We know the road to straight A's isn't always smooth, so contact us whenever you feel challenged by any kind of task and have an original assignment done according to your requirements.

• Our Services
• Additional Services
• Free Essays

Service Is a Study Guide

Our cheap essay writing service aims to help you achieve your desired academic excellence. We know the road to straight A's isn't always smooth, so contact us whenever you feel challenged by any kind of task and have an original assignment done according to your requirements.

Customer Reviews

Eloise Braun

What if I’m unsatisfied with an essay your paper service delivers?

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Protesters and the President

Over the past week, thousands of students protesting the war in gaza have been arrested..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From “New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

Free, free, Palestine!

Free, free Palestine!

Free, free, free Palestine!

Over the past week, what had begun as a smattering of pro-Palestinian protests on America’s college campuses exploded into a nationwide movement —

United, we’ll never be defeated!

— as students at dozens of universities held demonstrations, set up encampments, and at times seized academic buildings.

[PROTESTERS CLAMORING]:

response, administrators at many of those colleges decided to crack down —

Do not throw things at our officers. We will use chemical munitions that include gas.

— calling in local police to carry out mass detentions and arrests. From Arizona State —

In the name of the state of Arizona, I declare this gathering to be a violation of —

— to the University of Georgia —

— to City College of New York.

[PROTESTERS CHANTING, “BACK OFF”]:

As of Thursday, police had arrested 2,000 students on more than 40 campuses. A situation so startling that President Biden could no longer ignore it.

Look, it’s basically a matter of fairness. It’s a matter of what’s right. There’s the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos.

Today, my colleagues Jonathan Wolfe and Peter Baker on a history-making week. It’s Friday, May 3.

Jonathan, as this tumultuous week on college campuses comes to an end, it feels like the most extraordinary scenes played out on the campus of the University of California Los Angeles, where you have been reporting. What is the story of how that protest started and ultimately became so explosive?

So late last week, pro-Palestinian protesters set up an encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles.

From the river to the sea!

Palestine will be free!

Palestine —

It was right in front of Royce Hall, which I don’t know if you are familiar with UCLA, but it’s a very famous, red brick building. It’s on all the brochures. And there was two things that stood out about this encampment. And the first thing was that they barricaded the encampment.

The encampment, complete with tents and barricades, has been set up in the middle of the Westwood campus. The protesters demand —

They have metal grates. They had wooden pallets. And they separated themselves from the campus.

This is kind of interesting. There are controlling access, as we’ve been talking about. They are trying to control who is allowed in, who is allowed out.

They sort of policed the area. So they only would let people that were part of their community, they said, inside.

I’m a UCLA student. I deserve to go here. We paid tuition. This is our school. And they’re not letting me walk in. Why can’t I go? Will you let me go in?

We’re not engaging with that.

Then you can move. Will you move?

And the second thing that stood out about this camp was that it immediately attracted pro-Israel counterprotesters.

And what did the leadership of UCLA say about all of this, the encampment and these counterprotesters?

So the University of California’s approach was pretty unique. They had a really hands-off approach. And they allowed the pro-Palestinian protesters to set up an encampment. They allowed the counterprotesters to happen. I mean, this is a public university, so anyone who wants to can just enter the campus.

So when do things start to escalate?

So there were definitely fights and scuffles through the weekend. But a turning point was really Sunday —

[SINGING IN HEBREW]:

— when this group called the Israeli American Council, they’re a nonprofit organization, organized a rally on campus. The Israeli American Council has really been against these pro-Palestinian protests. They say that they’re antisemitic. So this nonprofit group sets up a stage with a screen really just a few yards from the pro-Palestinian encampment.

We are grateful that this past Friday, the University of California, stated that they will continue to oppose any calls for boycott and divestment from Israel!

[PROTESTERS CHEERING]

And they host speakers and they held prayers.

Jewish students, you’re not alone! Oh, you’re not alone! We are right here with you! And we’re right here with you in until —

[WORDLESS SINGING]:

And then lots of other people start showing up. And the proximity between protesters and counterprotesters and even some agitators, makes it really clear that something was about to happen.

And what was that? What ended up happening?

On Monday night, a group of about 60 counterprotesters tried to breach the encampment there. And the campus police had to break it up. And things escalated again on Tuesday.

They stormed the barricades and it’s a complete riot.

[PROTESTER SHOUTING]:

Put it down! Put it down! Put it down!

I went to report on what happened just a few hours after it ended.

And I spoke to a lot of protesters. And I met one demonstrator, Marie.

Yeah, my first name is Marie. M-A-R-I-E. Last name, Salem.

And Marie described what happened.

So can you just tell me a little bit about what happened last night?

Last night, we were approached by over a hundred counterprotesters who were very mobilized and ready to break into camp. They proceeded to try to breach our barricades extremely violently.

Marie said it started getting out of hand when counterprotesters started setting off fireworks towards the camp.

They had bear spray. They had Mace. They were throwing wood and spears. Throwing water bottles, continuing fireworks.

So she said that they were terrified. It was just all hands on deck. Everyone was guarding the barricades.

Every time someone experienced the bear spray or Mace or was hit and bleeding, we had some medics in the front line. And then we had people —

And they said that they were just trying to take care of people who were injured.

I mean, at any given moment, there was 5 to 10 people being treated.

So what she described to me sounded more like a battlefield than a college campus.

And it was just a complete terror and complete abandonment of the university, as we also watched private security watch this the entire time on the stairs. And some LAPD were stationed about a football field length back from these counterprotesters, and did not make a single arrest, did not attempt to stop any violence, did not attempt to get in between the two groups. No attempt.

I should say, I spoke to a state authorities and eyewitnesses and they confirmed Marie’s account about what happened that night, both in terms of the violence that took place at the encampment and how law enforcement responded. So in the end, people ended up fighting for hours before the police intervened.

[SOMBER MUSIC]

So in her mind, UCLA’s hands-off approach, which seemed to have prevailed throughout this entire period, ends up being way too hands off in a moment when students were in jeopardy.

That’s right. And so at this point, the protesters in the encampment started preparing for two possibilities. One was that this group of counterprotesters would return and attack them. And the second one was that the police would come and try to break up this encampment.

So they started building up the barricades. They start reinforcing them with wood. And during the day, hundreds of people came and brought them supplies. They brought food.

They brought helmets, goggles, earplugs, saline solution, all sorts of things these people could use to defend themselves. And so they’re really getting ready to burrow in. And in the end, it was the police who came.

[PROTESTERS SHOUTING]:

So Wednesday at 7:00 PM, they made an announcement on top of Royce Hall, which overlooks the encampment —

— administrative criminal actions up to and including arrest. Please leave the area immediately.

And they told people in the encampment that they needed to leave or face arrest.

[DRUM BEATING]: [PROTESTERS CHANTING]

And so as night falls, they put on all this gear that they’ve been collecting, the goggles, the masks and the earplugs, and they wait for the police.

[DRUM BEATING]:

And so the police arrive and station themselves right in front of the encampment. And then at a certain point, they storm the back stairs of the encampment.

[PROTESTERS CHANTING]:

And this is the stairs that the protesters have been using to enter and exit the camp. And they set up a line. And the protesters do this really surprising thing.

The people united!

They open up umbrellas. They have these strobe lights. And they’re flashing them at the police, who just slowly back out of the camp.

[PROTESTERS CHEERING]:

And so at this point, they’re feeling really great. They’re like, we did it. We pushed them out of their camp. And when the cops try to push again on those same set of stairs —

[PROTESTER SHOUTS]:

Hold your ground!

— the protesters organized themselves with all these shields that they had built earlier. And they go and confront them. And so there’s this moment where the police are trying to push up the stairs. And the protesters are literally pushing them back.

Push them back! Push them back!

Push them back!

And at a certain point, dozens of the police officers who were there, basically just turn around and leave.

So how does this eventually come to an end?

So at a certain point, the police push in again. Most of the conflict is centered at the front of these barricades. And the police just start tearing them apart.

[METAL CLANGING]

[CLAMORING]

They removed the front barricade. And in its place is this group of protesters who have linked arms and they’re hanging on to each other. And the police are trying to pull protesters one by one away from this group.

He’s just a student! Back off!

But they’re having a really hard time because there’s so many protesters. And they’re all just hanging on to each other.

We’re moving back now.

So at a certain point, one of the police officers started firing something into the crowd. We don’t exactly know what it was. But it really spooked the protesters.

Stop shooting at kids! Fuck you! Fuck them!

They started falling back. Everyone was really scared. The protesters were yelling, don’t shoot us. And at that point, the police just stormed the camp.

Get back. Get back.

Back up now!

And so after about four hours of this, the police pushed the protesters out of the encampment. They had arrested about 200 protesters. And this was finally over.

And I’m just curious, Jonathan, because you’re standing right there, you are bearing witness to this all, what you were thinking, what your impressions of this were.

I mean, I was stunned. These are mostly teenagers. This is a college campus, an institution of higher learning. And what I saw in front of me looked like a war zone.

[TENSE MUSIC]

The massive barricade, the police coming in with riot gear, and all this violence was happening in front of these red brick buildings that are famous for symbolizing a really open college campus. And everything about it was just totally surreal.

Well, Jonathan, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Thanks, Michael.

We’ll be right back.

Peter, around 10:00 AM on Thursday morning as the smoke is literally still clearing at the University of California Los Angeles, you get word that President Biden is going to speak.

Right, exactly. It wasn’t on his public schedule. He was about to head to Andrews Air Force base in order to take a trip. And then suddenly, we got the notice that he was going to be addressing the cameras in the Roosevelt Room.

They didn’t tell us what he was going to talk about. But it was pretty clear, I think. Everybody understood that it was going to be about these campus protests, about the growing violence and the clashes with police, and the arrests that the entire country had been watching on TV every night for the past week, and I think that we were watching just that morning with UCLA. And it reached the point where he just had to say something.

And why, in his estimation and those of his advisors, was this the moment that Biden had to say something?

Well, it kind of reached a boiling point. It kind of reached the impression of a national crisis. And you expect to hear your president address it in this kind of a moment, particularly because it’s about his own policy. His policy toward Israel is at the heart of these protests. And he was getting a lot of grief. He was getting a lot of grief from Republicans who were chiding him for not speaking out personally. He hadn’t said anything in about 10 days.

He’s getting a lot of pressure from Democrats, too, who wanted him to come out and be more forceful. It wasn’t enough, in their view, to leave it to his spokespeople to say something. Moderate Democrats felt he needed to come out and take some leadership on this.

And so at the appointed moment, Peter, what does Biden actually say in the Roosevelt Room of the White House?

Good morning.

Before I head to North Carolina, I wanted to speak for a few moments about what’s going on, on our college campuses here.

Well, it comes in the Roosevelt Room and he talks to the camera. And he talks about the two clashing imperatives of American principle.

The first is the right to free speech and for people to peacefully assemble and make their voices heard. The second is the rule of law. Both must be upheld.

One is freedom of speech. The other is the rule of law.

In fact, peaceful protest is in the best tradition of how Americans respond to consequential issues. But, but, neither are we a lawless country.

In other words, what he’s saying is, yes, I support the right of these protesters to come out and object to even my own policy, in effect, is what he’s saying. But it shouldn’t trail into violence.

Destroying property is not a peaceful protest. It’s against the law. Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses —

It shouldn’t trail into taking over buildings and obstructing students from going to class or canceling their graduations.

Threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear in people is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law.

And he leans very heavily into this idea that what he’s seeing these days goes beyond the line.

I understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions. In America, we respect the right and protect the right for them to express that. But it doesn’t mean anything goes.

It has crossed into harassment and expressions of hate in a way that goes against the national character.

As president, I will always defend free speech. And I will always be just as strong and standing up for the rule of law. That’s my responsibility to you, the American people, and my obligation to the Constitution. Thank you very much.

Right, as I watched the speech, I heard his overriding message to basically be, I, the president of the United States, am drawing a line. These protests and counterprotests, the seizing and defacing of campus buildings, class disruption, all of it, name calling, it’s getting out of hand. That there’s a right way to do this. And what I’m seeing is the wrong way to do it and it has to stop.

That’s exactly right. And as he’s wrapping up, reporters, of course, ask questions. And the first question is —

Mr. President, have the protests forced you to reconsider any of the policies with regard to the region?

— will this change your policy toward the war in Gaza? Which, of course, is exactly what the protesters want. That’s the point.

And he basically says —

— no. Just one word, no.

Right. And that felt kind of important, as brief and fleeting as it was, because at the end of the day, what he’s saying to these protesters is, I’m not going to do what you want. And basically, your protests are never going to work. I’m not going to change the US’s involvement in this war.

Yeah, that’s exactly right. He is saying, I’m not going to be swayed by angry people in the streets. I’m going to do what I think is right when it comes to foreign policy. Now, what he thinks is that they’re not giving him enough credit for trying to achieve what they want, which is an end of the war.

He has been pressuring Israel and Hamas to come to a deal for a ceasefire that will, hopefully, in his view, would then lead to a more enduring end of hostilities. But, of course, this deal hasn’t gone anywhere. Hamas, in particular, seems to be resisting it. And so the president is left with a policy of arming Israel without having found a way yet to stop the war.

Right. I wonder, though, Peter, if we’re being honest, don’t these protests, despite what Biden is saying there, inevitably exert a kind of power over him? Becoming one of many pressures, but a pressure nonetheless that does influence how he thinks about these moments. I mean, here he is at the White House devoting an entire conversation to the nation to these campus protests.

Well, look, he knows this feeds into the political environment in which he’s running for re-election, in which he basically has people who otherwise might be his supporters on the left disenchanted with him. And he knows that there’s a cost to be paid. And that certainly, obviously, is in his head as he’s thinking about what to do.

But I think his view of the war is changing by the day for all sorts of reasons. And most of them having to do with realities on the ground. He has decided that Israel has gone far enough, if not too far, in the way it has conducted this operation in Gaza.

He is upset about the humanitarian crisis there. And he’s looking for a way to wrap all this up into a move that would move to peacemaking, beginning to get the region to a different stage, maybe have a deal with the Saudis to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for some sort of a two-state solution that would eventually resolve the Palestinian issue at its core.

So I think it’s probably fair to say that the protests won’t move him in an immediate kind of sense. But they obviously play into the larger zeitgeist of the moment. And I also think it’s important to know who Joe Biden is at heart.

Explain that.

He’s not drawn to activism. He was around in 1968, the last time we saw this major conflagration at Columbia University, for instance. At the time, Joe Biden was a law student in Syracuse, about 250 miles away. And he was an institutionalist even then.

He was just focused on his studies. He was about to graduate. He was thinking about the law career. And he didn’t really have much of an affinity, I think, for his fellow students of that era, for their activist way of looking at things.

He tells a story in his memoir about walking down a street in Syracuse one day to go to the pizza shop with some friends. And they walk by the administration building. And they see people hanging out of the windows. They’re hanging SDS banners. That’s the Students for a Democratic Society, which was one of the big activist groups of the era.

And he says, they were taking over the building. And we looked up and said, look at those assholes. That’s how far apart from the antiwar movement I was. That’s him writing in his memoir.

So to a young Joe Biden, those who devote their time and their energy to protesting the war are, I don’t need to repeat the word twice, but they’re losers. They’re not worth his time.

Well, I think it’s the tactics they’re using more than the goals that he disagreed with. He would tell you he disagreed with the Vietnam War. He was for civil rights. But he thought that taking over a building was performative, was all about getting attention, and that there was a better way, in his view, to do it.

He was somebody who wanted to work inside the system. He said in an interview quite a few years back, he says, look, I was wearing sports coats in that era. He saw himself becoming part of the system, not somebody trying to tear it down.

And so how should we think about that Joe Biden, when we think about this Joe Biden? I mean, the Joe Biden who, as a young man, looked upon antiwar protesters with disdain and the one who is now president and his very own policies have inspired such ferocious campus protests?

Yeah, that Joe Biden, the 1968 Joe Biden, he could just throw on a sports coat, go to the pizza shop with his friends, make fun of the activists and call them names, and then that’s it. They didn’t have to affect his life. But that’s not what 2024 Joe Biden can do.

Now, wherever he goes, he’s dogged by this. He goes to speeches and people are shouting at him, Genocide Joe! Genocide Joe! He is the target of the same kind of a movement that he disdained in 1968. And so as much as he would like to ignore it or move on or focus on other things, I think this has become a defining image of his year and one of the defining images, perhaps, of his presidency. And 2024 Joe Biden can’t simply ignore it.

Well, Peter, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

Here’s what else you need to know today. During testimony on Thursday in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, jurors heard a recording secretly made by Trump’s former fixer, Michael Cohen, in which Trump discusses a deal to buy a woman’s silence. In the recording, Trump asks Cohen about how one payment made by Trump to a woman named Karen McDougal would be financed. The recording could complicate efforts by Trump’s lawyers to distance him from the hush money deals at the center of the trial.

A final thing to know, tomorrow morning, we’ll be sending you the latest episode from our colleagues over at “The Interview.” This week, David Marchese talks with comedy star Marlon Wayans about his new stand-up special.

It’s a high that you get when you don’t know if this joke that I’m about to say is going to offend everybody. Are they going to walk out? Are they going to boo me? Are they going to hate this. And then you tell it, and everybody cracks up and you’re like, woo.

Today’s episode was produced by Diana Nguyen, Luke Vander Ploeg, Alexandra Leigh Young, Nina Feldman, and Carlos Prieto. It was edited by Lisa Chow and Michael Benoist. It contains original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.

• May 10, 2024   •   27:42 Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand
• May 9, 2024   •   34:42 One Strongman, One Billion Voters, and the Future of India
• May 8, 2024   •   28:28 A Plan to Remake the Middle East
• May 7, 2024   •   27:43 How Changing Ocean Temperatures Could Upend Life on Earth
• May 6, 2024   •   29:23 R.F.K. Jr.’s Battle to Get on the Ballot
• May 3, 2024   •   25:33 The Protesters and the President
• May 2, 2024   •   29:13 Biden Loosens Up on Weed
• May 1, 2024   •   35:16 The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court
• April 30, 2024   •   27:40 The Secret Push That Could Ban TikTok
• April 29, 2024   •   47:53 Trump 2.0: What a Second Trump Presidency Would Bring
• April 26, 2024   •   21:50 Harvey Weinstein Conviction Thrown Out
• April 25, 2024   •   40:33 The Crackdown on Student Protesters

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Jonathan Wolfe and Peter Baker

Produced by Diana Nguyen ,  Luke Vander Ploeg ,  Alexandra Leigh Young ,  Nina Feldman and Carlos Prieto

Edited by Lisa Chow and Michael Benoist

Original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

Warning: this episode contains strong language.

Over the past week, students at dozens of universities held demonstrations, set up encampments and, at times, seized academic buildings. In response, administrators at many of those colleges decided to crack down and called in the local police to detain and arrest demonstrators.

As of Thursday, the police had arrested 2,000 people across more than 40 campuses, a situation so startling that President Biden could no longer ignore it.

Jonathan Wolfe, who has been covering the student protests for The Times, and Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent, discuss the history-making week.

On today’s episode

Jonathan Wolfe , a senior staff editor on the newsletters team at The New York Times.

Peter Baker , the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times covering President Biden and his administration.

Background reading

As crews cleared the remnants of an encampment at U.C.L.A., students and faculty members wondered how the university could have handled protests over the war in Gaza so badly .

Biden denounced violence on campus , breaking his silence after a rash of arrests.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Jonathan Wolfe is a senior staff editor on the newsletters team at The Times. More about Jonathan Wolfe

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The Times. He has covered the last five presidents and sometimes writes analytical pieces that place presidents and their administrations in a larger context and historical framework. More about Peter Baker

Luke Vander Ploeg is a senior producer on “The Daily” and a reporter for the National Desk covering the Midwest. More about Luke Vander Ploeg

Advertisement