If what O\'Rilley said was false and caused a pop star to loose money, you can be sure that there is a slander suit in the works, however I doubt this is the case, While I dislike O\'Rilley for many issues including being less then 100% honest, and full of himself, he usually has his data pretty straight forward and if it is false he corrects himself, or he looses his audience.
As for hip hop and other ?controversial? music?Face it Rap/Hip-hop is as main stream as it comes right now, no one that has Pepsi endorsement deals needs help to defend their rights, they have really good lawyers to do it. I am sure there was a good severance package involved in all this as well.
Hip-hop artists usually enjoy very short careers, while many have gone on to movies and television, as Rappers it does not last long for many of them, to have said that Hip Hop was marginalized in the mid 80?s I would agree, those who say it is now are whiney little babies looking for attention.
Please look beyond the hype. Cmhitman, I do not know your age, but if you have been listening to hip-hop (mostly friends) since the ?My Adidas? days you would recognize how far hip-hop has come. Are there any classics yet, not really, I can?t say many old school songs come around on the radio or parties other then ?the roof? but that may be changing as well.
Has rap improved, to a degree, there is a lot more style now and you can appreciate more talent then experimentation in the early days the experimentation was all there was, ?the Fat Boys? with their human beat box thing. And when you realize that the most successful hip hop recording artists to date are probably the most successful posers ever ?The Beastie Boys? it shows that there is some way to go yet in hip-hop. But the view that rappers need help with the first amendment???
When Ice-T put out Cop killer, on Body Count?s first album?great album by the way, Ice T and the rest of the band had to cancel shows cause the local police would not secure the concerts, this however was not censorship, and not against freedom of speech, what the cops where doing was making the insurance clauses on the contracts impossible to be fulfilled.
If you really want to get into freedom of speech issues
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org is a good site to start. While some of the data is a tad bit outdated
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-1107.pdf is a new case where the Supreme Court disallows for the prosecution of cross burners, yet opens the door for new and better written legislation on the subject.
I implore as many people to educate themselves on the first amendment; it is our most important rights, supported by the rest of the bill of rights, enforces that the legislation can not do certain things.
While many of these have been open for debate for many years now as legislation has infringed on these rights, eventually they come up in the Supreme Court, and this is truly where the most awe inspiring minds of our nation have resided. While I don?t agree with every conclusion in the Supreme Court, all opinions are very thought out and often beyond my level to reproach, until I read the dissenting argument.
Anyway what I am asking is that people understand what freedom of speech really is, and what it is not.
I believe that by making it encompass more then it does, cheapens it, makes it have less value. Remember you are free to express your ideas and thoughts, but you are not able to do so in a manner that infringes on the rights of another.
Anyway enough of a civics lesson for today.
