Two takes—one Hip Hop, the other . . . not—on the Ground Zero Mosque Controversy

As you probably know, the dispute over Cordova House, the proposed Muslim community center in lower Manhattan has dominated the political headlines for the past month. The dispute has grown from what at least one reporter called a non-issue to a political and ideological fight which has been weighed in on by the likes of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and President Obama (with a subsequent clarification by President Obama’s staff, as reported here by the Washington Post).

I originally planned on reporting on the blog and the interviews (here, here and here) by hip-hop impresario Russell Simmons in defense of the cultural center. (In addition to being the founder of Def Jam Records, Simmons is a board member of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding.) More recently in the Wall Street Journal Online, Simmons challenged Palin and Gingrich to prove they support freedom of worship for Muslims by asking them “to join me in fighting anti-Muslim hate-speech across the nation.”

But something else—something thoroughly hip hop, 21st century, and about freedom of speech—caught my attention here: dueling videos on YouTube that go to the heart of the debate. This was originally reported as “YouTube music videos go head-to-head over ‘ground zero mosque’” on the site Political Scrapbook. As soon as I read the story and saw there was a hip-hop connection, I had to investigate and bring it to your attention. To borrow a famous cinematic line: “here . . . we . . . GO!”

In this corner, we have a not-ready-for-prime-time Eminem-esque performance by a young rapper who goes by the YouTube handle “big j stokes” laying down his blunt opinions (read: Parental Guidance Suggested) about the dispute in his homemade cut, The Ground-Zero Mosque RAP!!!

In the other corner, in a style that I’ll call “country music karaoke,” is the counter-argument by “Trade Martin” who performs the oh-so-cryptically titled We’ve Got to Stop the Mosque at Ground Zero.

Now that you’ve seen the two sides, let me be a law professor for a paragraph. I always try to tell my students to always try to understand not just the text, but the context. So, a word on the context: the “Rap” appears homemade by a guy who looks no older than about 17. I mean really—he calls himself “big j stokes.” If you need further proof of the desktop-soapbox nature of his comments, look at his channel on YouTube. You’ll be dazed and confused by the hand-cam videos of Big J in karaoke rap battle.

In contrast, the “We’ve got to Stop the Mosque” video was produced by “Project Shining City.” From a quick glimpse of their website, Project Shining City is a conservative website which touts American constitutionalism and is aspiring to speak to “the Glen Beck middle.” Moreover, the co-producer, WooTv. us, is a similar Tea Party website, lead by African American Tea Party activist Lloyd Marcus. The site proclaims itself to be the “Home of the Conservative Voice.”

All this sums up the debate and divisions better than my editorializing ever could. So, (most of) my sarcasm aside, here is proof positive that, contrary to the beliefs of some, the First Amendment is not being undercut by special interests, whether they be left, right, or center. In this case, the First Amendment is doing exactly what it is supposed to do: allowing a debate to take place in the open marketplace of ideas that is YouTube. This debate is happening in a fashion that is driven by music and poetry’s appeal to our emotional and intellectual sensibilities—which is the power of hip hop (and also, apparently, cheesy country karaoke).

It is also uniquely 21st century since anyone with a computer and a mix program can state their point of view backed up by a catchy beat. Here, we have a kid with a desktop camera, a hip-hop consciousness, and a beat who is holding his own with the better-funded right wing conservative interests. This fact shows that the First Amendment is working at its best when it creates this opening for a (small-d) democratic throw down. Best of all, the First Amendment allows almost any point of view to be articulated and then you, gentle reader, get to decide what you believe.

(Afterword: I realize that this whole debate depends on the fact that YouTube is free and that anyone can post to it at any time. Thus, I also realize that much could be said about a real threat to the First Amendment: the possible end of net neutrality. It seems fair to ask whether corporate interests will destroy the marketplace of ideas by putting a price tag on the Internet. That is a serious issue, but it is a debate for a future blog posting.)

Florida Rapper Gets Two Years In Prison For Threatening Lyrics

Antavio Johnson, a 20-year old rapper from Lakeland, Florida, was sentenced to two years in prison on July 24 for threatening a pair of police officers in his song, “Kill Me a Cop.”

Johnson, who was already on probation stemming from cocaine possession charges, received his sentence after pleading no contest to two counts of corruption by threat against a public servant under Chapter 838.021 of the Florida Criminal Code.

In the first verse of “Kill Me a Cop”, Johnson raps: “If Officer Bailey care at all/ Get my timing wrong/ Im’ma be puttin’ one in his dome/ Mr. Officer, Mr. Officer/ Try me on the wrong day/ And I’m offin’ ya …” In his next verse, Johnson makes a similar threat against another officer, rapping: “If Officer Campbell/ The Wonder Woman/ Get my timing wrong/ Im’ma be puttin’ one in her dome/ Mrs. Officer, Mrs. Officer/ Try me on the wrong day/ And I’m offin’ ya …” Johnson concludes both verses with: “Call me crazy but I think I fell in love with the sound/ Of hearing the dispatcher saying, ‘Officer Down’ …” You can listen to the full song here.

A handful of lawyers in central Florida have joined the American Civil Liberties Union in looking into Johnson’s case. While it remains unclear whether they will take up Johnson’s cause, any legal action on the rapper’s behalf will require yet another reexamination of just how much protection the First Amendment provides free speech when it is delivered via threatening song lyrics.

Prior Supreme Court decisions have established that the freedom of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment is not absolute. For instance, speech amounting to solicitation of crime or conspiracy is outside the scope of constitutional protection according to Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36 (1961). Also, speech which is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and which is likely to incite or produce such action, is outside the scope of First Amendment protection under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444-448 (1969). Furthermore, the constitutional freedom for speech does not immunize “speech used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.” Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949).

Of course, Giboney seems to represent the strongest rebuke to any constitutional challenge Johnson may mount over the state of Florida’s punishment of his speech. From this writer’s viewpoint, the specificity of Johnson’s threats will make it very difficult for him to successfully assert protection under the First Amendment.