> It certainly seems likely that he's merely trying to "sound like a rapper" rather than threatening actual harm, but the words don't really absolve him of the threats contained therein. It is difficult to parse legally:
It did not seem that hard to parse, but I am not a lawyer.
> 1. Legal: It lacks imminence (Brandenburg)
No deadlines, so nothing showing anything soon. "I’ma be famous rapping," but first he needs to be a famous rapper which suggest no time soon.
> 2. Illegal: It does communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence (Virginia v. Black)
Threats in the lyrics are no different then threats and comments in many rappers famous and non-famous and more often then not seem non-serious( are not carried through, evidence of planning is lacking etc.)
> 3. Legal: It is not directed to a particular individual or group of individuals (Virginia v. Black)
He only mentions the white house, no specific individuals or groups. If he had mentioned individuals or party or a subcommittee it seems like it would still fall under political free speech which in general is heavily protected because it is supposed to at the root or a foundational pillar of the US's democracy.
>4. Illegal: The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat...a prohibition on true threats...protect[s] individuals from...fear...disruption...[and] the possibility that the threatened violence will occur (Virginia v. Black)
I see no evidence in the rap lyrics I have read that he was trying to cause disruption in the government or to change a group or individuals actions through threat.
> If there was a middle ground legally for people who's intent was less harmful than their speech it would benefit this kid, but how would you prove that? And it would muddy the law's ability to fight against true threats.
Normally in the US, at least, you do not have to prove some one's innocence. The state has the burden of proving guilty.
It did not seem that hard to parse, but I am not a lawyer.
> 1. Legal: It lacks imminence (Brandenburg)
No deadlines, so nothing showing anything soon. "I’ma be famous rapping," but first he needs to be a famous rapper which suggest no time soon.
> 2. Illegal: It does communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence (Virginia v. Black)
Threats in the lyrics are no different then threats and comments in many rappers famous and non-famous and more often then not seem non-serious( are not carried through, evidence of planning is lacking etc.)
> 3. Legal: It is not directed to a particular individual or group of individuals (Virginia v. Black)
He only mentions the white house, no specific individuals or groups. If he had mentioned individuals or party or a subcommittee it seems like it would still fall under political free speech which in general is heavily protected because it is supposed to at the root or a foundational pillar of the US's democracy.
>4. Illegal: The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat...a prohibition on true threats...protect[s] individuals from...fear...disruption...[and] the possibility that the threatened violence will occur (Virginia v. Black)
I see no evidence in the rap lyrics I have read that he was trying to cause disruption in the government or to change a group or individuals actions through threat.
> If there was a middle ground legally for people who's intent was less harmful than their speech it would benefit this kid, but how would you prove that? And it would muddy the law's ability to fight against true threats.
Normally in the US, at least, you do not have to prove some one's innocence. The state has the burden of proving guilty.