A rapper's aspirations being expressed, or a criminal's intent of making your children take drugs?
For direct reference in Spanish:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/09/06/valencia/1315324375.html
Or click here (google translator version)
With the innovations of the internet, most particularly through Google and Youtube, both audio and audio-video multimedia have become the dominant trends of nearly all internet users, and has clearly had its consequence on the diffusion of artistic expression.
In the present "case" that has yet to become a case, a Spanish rapper made a music video to accompany his musical tribute to Cullera, Spain---which is a small coastal town in Valencia. In the spirit of most rappers, the song "Se Hace Llamar Cullera" glorifies the rapper's hometown as a palace for gangsters and drugs--well, let's be fair it mostly talks about smoking weed, but this has been interpreted as drugs in general. As a result of the video's publicity, it was brought to the attention of the Town Hall of Cullera which has put together a case against the Spanish rapper for allegedly "inciting minors to drug use" by making the town out to be a safehaven for drugs and drugusers alike.
The video is full of "images of minors" who, apart from waving guns, swords, and bats around, are "apparently consuming drugs."
It is certainly true that the use of internet material as a means of incriminating evidence has also clearly become a law enforcement strategy. However, artistic expression is certainly a protected form of free speech, and the creation and production of a video would normally fall within this category. It encompasses one of the purest notions of self-expression, being appreciated on both objective and subjective levels. In fact, a "music video" incorporates the melding of both audio and visual arts. In any case, self-expression is also a realm of expression that strikes closest to the core of an individual, as it produces a creation that reflects the maker's thoughts.
Are these thoughts able to pose sufficient risk as to demand state action? Certainly one can fathom a scenario in which they have and still do. Pornographic material is a simple example that is rarely considered appropriate in the viewing eyes of young children. Nonetheless, the pornographic industry has also been protected for having legitimate free speech protection, allowing the industry to exist and in fact thrive on the internet. Thus, the question is rather to what point should censorship influence or even ban artistic expression? Is it the rapper's freedom to express his thoughts, views and personal experiences of Cullera, or is it Cullera's obligation to prevent music and videos from promoting drug use within the town of Cullera?
Clearly, the primary dispute has been over the fact that there are minors who look like they are smoking drugs, but this has been construed to in some way incite criminal activity amongst minors. What is clear is that these claims of drug use would require real police work in the first place if the prosecution were to be base itself on something more than merely bowing to public outcry, which mostly cares about the town's reputation being tainted.
Personally, I can't help but take issue with this. I don't particularly like the rap song, but I cannot support the idea that legal action can be taken against a rapper, or any other artist, for expressing how he feels and what he believes through his art, however stupid it may seem to somebody else. The Town Hall suggests that criminal incitement, or the intent of doing so is the result of a video, changing the focus of criticism from the message of the artist (lyrics of a song) and putting it on the artistic method chosen to further communicate the message (a music video).
But the idea that this video is causing children to do drugs makes a dangerous exageration that completely ignores the autonomy which each person has in deciding their own actions--lawful or not. In the case of responsibility for the actions of minors who actually MIGHT be incited to drug use, my reaction sounds awfully like the same argument for children who MIGHT truly be incited to violence for playing video games--where are their parents in all of this, who often buy, pay for and facilitate the use of such dangerous multimedia? This does not put the blame on the parents, but definitely is meant to acknowledge their responsibility as an alternative solution to simply suing the artist.
Will there be an investigation, and should there be? I wouldn't be surprised but I hope not, for the sake of artistic expression. The law is not a soap box for announcing our feelings, nor is it a vehicle of expressing our criticism or imposing our disapproval. Rather than threatening a law suit, the town officials of Cullera should seek to campaign against the video's message by means of fomenting further discussion of the issues at hand: drug use amongst minors, not rap videos about drugs. However, if the intent of the Town Hall of Cullera is to give the video even FURTHER publicity, making a law suit is certainly the way to do so.
For direct reference in Spanish:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/09/06/valencia/1315324375.html
Or click here (google translator version)
With the innovations of the internet, most particularly through Google and Youtube, both audio and audio-video multimedia have become the dominant trends of nearly all internet users, and has clearly had its consequence on the diffusion of artistic expression.
In the present "case" that has yet to become a case, a Spanish rapper made a music video to accompany his musical tribute to Cullera, Spain---which is a small coastal town in Valencia. In the spirit of most rappers, the song "Se Hace Llamar Cullera" glorifies the rapper's hometown as a palace for gangsters and drugs--well, let's be fair it mostly talks about smoking weed, but this has been interpreted as drugs in general. As a result of the video's publicity, it was brought to the attention of the Town Hall of Cullera which has put together a case against the Spanish rapper for allegedly "inciting minors to drug use" by making the town out to be a safehaven for drugs and drugusers alike.
The video is full of "images of minors" who, apart from waving guns, swords, and bats around, are "apparently consuming drugs."
It is certainly true that the use of internet material as a means of incriminating evidence has also clearly become a law enforcement strategy. However, artistic expression is certainly a protected form of free speech, and the creation and production of a video would normally fall within this category. It encompasses one of the purest notions of self-expression, being appreciated on both objective and subjective levels. In fact, a "music video" incorporates the melding of both audio and visual arts. In any case, self-expression is also a realm of expression that strikes closest to the core of an individual, as it produces a creation that reflects the maker's thoughts.
Are these thoughts able to pose sufficient risk as to demand state action? Certainly one can fathom a scenario in which they have and still do. Pornographic material is a simple example that is rarely considered appropriate in the viewing eyes of young children. Nonetheless, the pornographic industry has also been protected for having legitimate free speech protection, allowing the industry to exist and in fact thrive on the internet. Thus, the question is rather to what point should censorship influence or even ban artistic expression? Is it the rapper's freedom to express his thoughts, views and personal experiences of Cullera, or is it Cullera's obligation to prevent music and videos from promoting drug use within the town of Cullera?
Clearly, the primary dispute has been over the fact that there are minors who look like they are smoking drugs, but this has been construed to in some way incite criminal activity amongst minors. What is clear is that these claims of drug use would require real police work in the first place if the prosecution were to be base itself on something more than merely bowing to public outcry, which mostly cares about the town's reputation being tainted.
Personally, I can't help but take issue with this. I don't particularly like the rap song, but I cannot support the idea that legal action can be taken against a rapper, or any other artist, for expressing how he feels and what he believes through his art, however stupid it may seem to somebody else. The Town Hall suggests that criminal incitement, or the intent of doing so is the result of a video, changing the focus of criticism from the message of the artist (lyrics of a song) and putting it on the artistic method chosen to further communicate the message (a music video).
But the idea that this video is causing children to do drugs makes a dangerous exageration that completely ignores the autonomy which each person has in deciding their own actions--lawful or not. In the case of responsibility for the actions of minors who actually MIGHT be incited to drug use, my reaction sounds awfully like the same argument for children who MIGHT truly be incited to violence for playing video games--where are their parents in all of this, who often buy, pay for and facilitate the use of such dangerous multimedia? This does not put the blame on the parents, but definitely is meant to acknowledge their responsibility as an alternative solution to simply suing the artist.
Will there be an investigation, and should there be? I wouldn't be surprised but I hope not, for the sake of artistic expression. The law is not a soap box for announcing our feelings, nor is it a vehicle of expressing our criticism or imposing our disapproval. Rather than threatening a law suit, the town officials of Cullera should seek to campaign against the video's message by means of fomenting further discussion of the issues at hand: drug use amongst minors, not rap videos about drugs. However, if the intent of the Town Hall of Cullera is to give the video even FURTHER publicity, making a law suit is certainly the way to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment