That's such an odd charge, where does it go? the whole black community or white community...etc?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
French rapper investigated for call to 'hang white people'
- Thread starter Deleted member 15428
- Start date
Police/Government/State coffers.
The police officers were the 'victims' here.
Ahah, good one. We're the specialist of talking about subjects nobody cares about while things that are really important for the country are happening.
If I do a speech in Paris announcing that I will kill babies solely based on their skin color I would be charged for hate speech.
It doesn't suddenly fall under the freedom of arts with just rapping the same lines.
There are other ways how you can criticize a society without incitement of hate based on skin color.
It's too simple. It's the same as simply saying "white person" or "black person" is inciting racism. Nothing there is a call, but I will allow that it is inciting violence. But only for him.
Now, we have changed direction a little. It's no more a call to action for others to kill babies and hang white people, it's more that you believe it is a manifesto of what he is doing to do. And you believe he is going to kill babies and kill white people, and that's why it's hate speech. Is that right?
Are you being literal? Do you want to actually kill babies? Are you part of any known and/or organized hate movements/militias/supremacy groups? Do you have a criminal record and/or some sort of supporting past/history where you (literally) attempted to kill babies or desired to kill babies?
And there are ways to be objectively honest about something without ignoring the context and intent.
Community service often involves working at a charity, but as far as I was aware fines go to the crown?
That's ass backwards and no surprise. It usually never makes it back to the community, like grant money for poor neighborhoods.
No one claimed that he will actually kill babies. This isn't even relevant if something is hate speech but if it this actually a real existing threat then it wouldn't be hate speech but fall under terrorism laws.
None of it matters, he'll get his time in court. Regardless.
Jesus fucking Christ. The rapper says that it is somehow a message of love? Can a French speaker give insight on the entire song? My French is OK and I can use Google translate but nuance is still lost. I mean this looks like simple hatred but I'd like to see if there is any kind of defense to this.
And most sane people argue that hate speech laws, if they are to exist, should require to prove malicious and/or targetted intent, not be fucking rap lyrics or stupid attempts at humour.
Because of the parallels to rap music and Government intervention, do you approve of this? https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-who-posted-rap-lyrics-14543694 / https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
Is that hate speech worthy of the Government/police being involved and someone getting a criminal record/fines/etc?
Around here the surcharge is used to fund support services for victims of crimes. I'm pretty sure a bit of googling would discover what happens in France and the UK, instead of going "oh it's just going to stupid thing x, I just know, these people amirite".
Then you would just get people adding a melody to their hate speech to avoid prosecution lol.
Sorry, if it's hard for some to believe. That it will actually go to were it's intended.
When money is involved things get sketchy.
It's supposed to be pooled and divvied out to groups such as the "Domestic Violence and Abuse Service, BCHA, VOICE UK, the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre and other organisations."
https://assets.publishing.service.g...le/220079/vic-witness-general-fund-awards.pdf
Granted, wether or not its actually gets there in it's entirety is another question entirely. Probably ends up funding the local plod's Christmas party.
Not really, because the actual person and their past/history/current actions often relays their intent. But either way credible incitement and/or intent should have to be proven, not just assumed.
But I get the joke, it's kind of funny to imagine genuine hate groups singing their intent.
I guess it depends what court cases are covered by the "Victims and witnesses general fund".
No no, I am just saying that France, I assume, demand YT to take it down due to violating their law (since it is a french youtuber).
Why newspaper are writing about it now just, I guess is due to something happen, and let us hope this open up peoples eyes towards other shitty YT channels (like the image you posted).
I'm not sure how you have hate speech in general that does not "prove malicious and/or targetted intent" though. Targeted is one thing but unless it's some kind of insanely obvious joke, which most racist music is not, there is malicious intent there.
Offensive intent maybe, but malicious intent to me is the artist actually endorsing what they are writing/singing/putting into their work.
So you actually think this artist literally wants to hang white babies?
According to Wikipedia, in the UK it goes to Victim and Witness General Fund. Is there any particular reason to believe this fund is corrupt?
Have you seen how parliament, handles money and services? it's yikes in general.
I mean America is no better.
You're right, it probably does end up there in all court cases.
But the issue isn't "hey the police put the money somewhere good!", it's, the police/courts should not have been taking this money in the first place.
They probably don't but if the country has laws against such statements then backed up with intent or not, I don't think a melodic voicing of it is enough to bypass. If it was in the US it would be fine I guess.
It could also have an effect on others (either being offensive to the group in question or inciting violence) that you can't really determine by looking only at the individual.
I mean, I think there's absolutely no issue with him being investigated. It's not like he's been thrown in some kind of dungeon, right?
Those lyrics are describing extremely violent acts targeting babies, and targeting a certain skin color. Seems about right that this kind of content is looked at in a "possible hate speech" context.
For the record, if I (Austrian) found any Austrian song containing stuff like this, no matter about whom, you can bet your ass I'll contact the authorities.
Those lyrics are describing extremely violent acts targeting babies, and targeting a certain skin color. Seems about right that this kind of content is looked at in a "possible hate speech" context.
For the record, if I (Austrian) found any Austrian song containing stuff like this, no matter about whom, you can bet your ass I'll contact the authorities.
Should stop paying taxes altogether seeing as how Parliament mishandles it.
This dude didn't say "white people suck" or "white people are previliged" and people throw a fit over it. He said "hang white people and their babies".
Small but siginifact difference. If you can't see that you're out of your mind or trolling.
Posts like yours are the reason why "white fragility" gets diluted to a non-term because you use it for everything no matter if it fits or not.
Brb telling the German government Nazi-bands are only joking since they are singing their inhumane shit instead of writing or screaming it.
Well, if your argument to me is simply "but those are the rules of the country", okay. The argument I make is these rules are bullshit if this is how the state is going to be able to abuse them.
It's funny how the left behaved so differently in the 00s (some of you are now more Conservative than the Conservatives fought against in the past), and even today when talking about how other countries are even worse with Government speech codes people still speak up, but if its Europe or America, oh, we can't possibly say anything critical of our state. They should be doing what they want with speech no matter context/intent!
I get people being "scared" to be tagged as defending someone they don't like, but unless you have no spine, sometimes a defence against Government overreach comes on behalf of people you don't like.
Is this sarcasm? or are you serious? ;p
Well the Nazi groups in those area's, actual practice what they preach. From time to time.
If you came away from this in your mind, then maybe you should reflect.
I can think of a lot worse than a victim surcharge. In fact the idea of it is not bad at all.
Some are white and they hate themselves so they shit on all white people.It'd be funny if it weren't sad.
I don't know why you grouped the two together here since the situation is the total opposite. An American can generally say whatever they want and this transfer over to music. In some countries in Europe it's not the case. Are you being critical of both situations simultaneously?
According to the other poster this dude isn't preaching/advocating, but joking based on the way he expressed his views though. Which is ridiculous.
It's hatespeech, no way around it.
A victim surcharge when there is a victim? Sure. There was no victim with some dumb girl quoting song lyrics on instagram.
More so being critical of people in America who are unable to accept Europe's hate speech laws are not some perfect golden goose.
You have the complete opposite where you have the 1st amendment to protect all speech which isn't literal incitement. I understand arguments can be made there are problems with that too.
But there are problems with our speech laws as well, and depending on the outcome of this French investigation this will be yet another.
I don't particularly think China/North Korea are the roadmap forward for any society where the Government simply decides or overrules all context and intent. It should have to be proven there is a legit threat/incitement and its fucking mind boggling to watch people think that is a radical stance. Partisan politics where you let your feelings or how offended you are, overrule objectivity, and decide if it's someone you don't like, let the Government do whatever it wants.
Last edited:
Don't agree that it's hate speech I think the message is clear. It's violent and grotesque but it isn't unlike "Last Caress", for example, which is about war atrocities. I know here on Era we often prefer to ignore context when it suits us but I think in this case it gets a pass due to its intent. Art isn't always meant to be taken at face value and certainly not in a vacuum. And yeah, if the races were reversed it would be a totally different situation, again because context.
I don't think it's racist to defend the song nor is it racist to believe it's hate speech and should be punished.
I don't think it's racist to defend the song nor is it racist to believe it's hate speech and should be punished.
Hate speech has a victim, so it's a perfectly reasonable thing to have there. The issue of whether someone should be convicted in the first place is another thing.
I mean here we have victim surcharge even in some cases of speeding, and I have no problem with that either.
It's an American thing for the most part, and with most people being American here, nothing in this thread surprises me.
True, which is why I've never said otherwise, now did I?
It's an idiot nobody getting his due for doing something shitty. But the way this has been played up, you'd think it's a major star who's said.
Bottom line is, it's been blown up so the racists can say "look, they're the real racist!" while everyone pretends a third of voters voting for a fucking Nazi last election is no biggie.
Yeah because rap lyrics in a song that you don't have to listen to, buy or in anyway support is similar to someone speeding and potentially killing or hurting others on a road. Speeding has been proven to lessen your ability to control your vehicle and/or react in a timely manner if it's required.
Honestly, how does your brain process things like this? How do you do it? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, my head is simply spinning trying to understand how the mind works in someone who literally thinks there is a victim of this rap song?
There are offended people, but simply being offended doesn't mean you are a victim. Well, you're maybe a "victim" of yourself if you can't move on from an over the top hyperbolic rap song. But that's about it. Unless credible intent can be proven on behalf of this artist they are nothing more than someone potentially being edgy or attempting to and arguably failing to portray a deeper meaning through the use of inflammatory or offensive lyrics.
Something that many artists try, and some succeed. Others fail. Those that fail at worst require some criticism and/or social consequences (people not liking them, etc). Era loves the idea of no platforming, in general, right? Well, you can protest this artists platforms and/or report their content all you want. Go wild. I couldn't care less about that. I do however care when we are talking state, Government and police intervention.