But, now what? Alexander suggests we need a mass movement to end mass incarceration. Russell Simmons and Dr. Boyce Watkins have joined forces to call on the White House to address mass incarceration. They remain relatively quite about their plans however. We do know that several hip-hoppers are involved including Lil' Wayne and Nicki Minaj. KultureKritic.com and BlackBlueDog.com have both reported this story.
Questions remain... What should we expect from Simmons and Watkins and their associated stars? Will their work reach the masses who will need to join in the effort to end mass incarceration? When will we have a better idea what Simmons and Watkins want and what their strategy is for achieving it? Simmons and Watkins are surely doing important work, but we'll need to wait and see what becomes of their efforts.
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.)
In March, Russell Simmons, godfather of DefJam records and hip hop mogul, led a group of protesters in New York City challenging the harsh New York drug laws known as the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Hundreds gathered outside Governor David Paterson's Manhattan office to call on the Governor and various state representatives to repeal the 1970s era drug laws enacted by then Governor Nelson Rockefeller.
The Rockefeller Drug Laws, now famous for harsh mandatory-minimum sentences and the hugely disproportionate impact it has on African American and Latino offenders, was severely criticized as illegitimate and profane by many attending the protest, including Simmons. The Rockefeller Drug Laws were enacted in 1973 and are composed of mandatory-minimum prison punishment based upon the type and amount of drug an offender is arrested with. Originally, the laws were intended to capture large drug kingpins, but evidence indicates now that most of the individuals imprisoned under these laws are low-level, non-violent offenders, many with no previous criminal history.
"We are at the pivotal point where our hard work pays off, [b]ut we can't let up now. The fact is the Governor and State Senator both fought for the changes that the assembly has proposed to them. But both Governor Paterson and State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith need to hear our voices. They are being pushed by forces that are not interested in changing this horrible law which has devastated black and brown communities for two generations."
Through 2009, it is estimated that of the 12,000 individuals convicted on Rockefeller charges, 90% are African American or Latino and cost the state of New York $45,000 per person annually.
Simmons participation in this protest brings to mind the many and various ways that hip hop artists and leaders have taken political positions of importance in the past. Groups like Public Enemy, The Roots, N.W.A. and artists like KRS-One, Talib Kweli, Common and Mos Def have certainly impacted society with their lyrics and political sensibilities. Still, the question is often raised as to whether hip hop and hip hop artists can genuinely contribute to positive social change? Can hip hop and socially conscious artists truly affect social change and impact society in a positive way?
This very question was debated last weekend at the "Conceptualizing Substantive Justice" conference held at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law (April 17-18, 2009). A panel at that conference engaged in robust discussion in connection with hip hop and its curious relationship with criminal justice. Many conference attendees wondered aloud and debated whether hip hop has the potential to overcome its negative encumberances (violence, misogyny, homophobia, materialism, hypermasculinity) so that its important and genuine societal critique and plea for social change can be heard. Can hip hop still be heard?
We've all heard about the evils of mass incarceration, made perhaps most salient by Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Reactions to the book have largely been positive and you need not look far to find a review of this important text (SocialistAlternative.org, New York Times, Boston Review, International Socialist Review, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Yale Daily News, Washington Lawyer, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, and my own in the Texas Law Review Dicta are but a few of the many reviews). Savvy Internet searchers that you are, I am sure you've also come across numerous reading groups, discussion board threads, and local meetings organizing people around the important issue of mass incarceration. These are all great. 
