On February 9, there is a strong opportunity for Kendrick Lamar to walk on the stage at the Super Bowl exhibition in New Orleans, and Drake invites children in front of hundreds of millions of viewers.
It will be difficult for him to perform his success “not like us” without doing this – or at least without reminding viewers of the most hook in the song. The path – which was nominated for recording and songs in the sixty -seventh year – is located at the Drake and Universal Music Group center, for both artists. Drake claims that UMG promoted a song that publishes false allegations about; A group of stickers says it has supported the creative expression of the Politzer artist, which is her list.
At a time when public prosecutors used Yong’s words against him in court, and the new president wants to make it easier for the wealthy and strong to prosecute defamation, is there any legal danger to “not like us” in Super Bowl?
The Times Talk to Ken WhiteThe famous first amendment, the criminal defense lawyer And podcaster prolific productionLamar’s performance quotas in light of the Drake suit and the changing legal environment for defamation – even in rap beef.
It is difficult to imagine that Kendrick Lamar will not perform “not like us” in Super Bowl. Is there any risk to running that song on the largest stage in America while there is an active lawsuit against UMG around it?
There is a risk, but it seems low due to the way Drake decided to do this. He went intentionally after UMG, and said this was not related to Kendrick. It was like “I don’t want to choose a battle with Kendrick, I just want to choose a battle with UMG.” All he could do is say, “UMG promoted this song in Super Bowl, their hands got Kendrick Lamar the Gig.”
It does not seem to increase the image of Lamar threatening a lot. It is already a widely known song, so it seems that Drake’s position is taking: “I will go after a kind of defendant who is unpopular, no one likes, a big score.”
If Kendrick performs words where Drake Drake is the children’s shroud, does this open the American Football Association networks, television networks or anyone else to be exposed here?
It increases theoretical damage. But is Central America listening to Kendrick in Super Bowl really to destroy Drake’s reputation more than already affected? Maybe not. Other people responsible for helping to publish what he says are wrong data. I am sure that the American Football Association and the network and all of them thought about it. He will not surprise me if they are trying to prevent him from doing it in Super Bowl.
I am a defense lawyer, so of course I will say, “Guys, do not do this. He will give me just a headache.” I am sure that every general advisor in the network or the American Football Association says, “No, for the love of God, do not do that.” . But the first half width was always ready to display somewhat exciting things. So I don’t really know how to play it, but if you are an internal lawyer, I will tell them not to do so.
Drake’s suit is not intended for Kindrik, but UMG. Drake may have its own reasons for choosing this. What do you think he is already trying to achieve it?
In fact, it may be, the contract with UMG is compatible with other means. In fact, he may want money, or he may try to link a reform needle by not continuing to lose rap beef. The problem is that he chose to continue participating in this, and now he does not like the results.
Kendrick Lamar will be the thing that Kendrick Lamar says in the Diss path that Drake will do. But Drake should do something. So, he considers, “I may be able to follow the defendant, no one loves and tries to keep my reputation, but I do not look like a complete loser.”
But you know, the next time, do not enter the beef with a much better person than you are.
Did he have a better opportunity to sue Kindrik directly?
No, I think UMG. Drake begins his complaint, describing the violence against him after the song appeared, because this is the most persuaded way to file the case. Start with the most burning things to get sympathy and make people think, “Oh yes, this was actually a very dangerous result.” I don’t think there is a lot of conflict that some people literally took the song literally and made crazy things.
But this is not the real issue in the case of defamation. You have to show that UMG knew that all things in the song were wrong. But I don’t know if this is more difficult than showing that Kindrik Lamar knows it was a mistake. Lamar is very popular, and the marks of music are not. Also, one step was removed, less embarrassment for him.
This is part of the rap meat dance, although you have a technical license but wink in the echo of real life.
Drake’s complaint, for me, is completely not honest. Fullly failed to express context. There is nothing about the history between them, and that this was the latest DISS path in the back among these men, which is rap beef, which is mainly the modern version of Dozens. He only treats her as if Kendrick, from pure malice, decides only to accuse Drake that he is a homosexual.
It is an attempt to hide one of the most important issues of the first amendment, which is “Is this a false accusation of the truth, or is it a speech and excessive?” This is an option, but I don’t think it is an option that the judges will love, because it looks very scary. It is an example of the reason for your need Control SLAPP [strategic lawsuits against public participation] Laws, because this allows you to sign, “Hey, these men hide these things from you.”
Drake claims that UMG knew that allegations in the lyrics of songs were not correct and pushed the song anyway. Is this risky, that this is already a discovery about the advantages of these claims?
Certainly, but you do not reach this point unless you exceed the initial obstacle, “Can this defamation be?” To get there, you have to show that you know that this is a great wrong statement. If I say, “Kane, your mother is so fat that the type of blood is Raju”, my mother cannot, God sued it, because everyone understands that this is an insult, and not a literally correct thing.
So, if you have got this rap, the question is, is this legendary reasonable person, who is completely aware of the context, hears the Diss path and thinks, “Wow, this is literally true.” Or do they say, “This is an artistic model that has passed through the centuries, and they are elaborating to deliberately exaggerated insults against the other person?”
You cannot literally take it, which Drake’s lawyers formulated the complaint to hide it. But yes, certainly, as soon as you decide that it may be true or wrong, you will enter all things in Drake’s life.
This is a strange moment for rap words in the courtrooms – Representatives of prosecution in the thugs trial tried to use his words as adults about actual crimes. UMG’s defense is likely to be that this is a creative expression and cannot be aphorus. Is the rap words environment in court change?
It is the issue of a living wire in a criminal context. There was this conflict, “Can you take the words of rap as evidence of true crime and violence? Or is it an artistic expression?” Some places have passed laws on this issue, and some courts have seen them in different ways. There were adjustments to some of the rules of evidence that you cannot use technical expressions as a sign of intention.
I think this is a cultural conflict between rap culture and the culture of 80 -year -old white judge. I do not think that any judge believes that if Johnny Cash is tried to attack, you will be able to bring “I fired a man in Renault to see him dies” as evidence of intentions. Culturally, the judge will understand this expression.
The eternal problem is that there are always some people who think it is real. The question is whether this reasonable person is the legendary judge, the maker of a sober decision is aware of all context and facts, if this person will literally take it.
Can this lawsuit affect any kind of influence on DISS paths in the future?
i doubt it. It is very profitable, it’s very effective, it’s very great for marketing. I think what Drake might be looking for is the type of result in which UMG says, “We are ready to settle this, because everyone should understand this artistic expression. No one takes it literally.”
But Drake is a very rich man who is not known for making great decisions, and he may decide that he wants to defend his honor and take this along the way.
We have again PThe resident who was explicit about changing defamation laws to facilitate the prosecution. Should this be passed, will this affect the expense of the differentiation and integration of anyone to speak such a song?
I am worried. Ten, even five years ago, I would say no, the central laws are strong. But you now have a conservative movement that is looking to undermine some legal foundations in the defamation law, including the concept that you must show to actual malice if the plaintiff is a public figure. [President] Trump Super transactions, he is not a legal thinker. But the entire federal society, some of them are completely pushing to facilitate the rich public figures, prosecute and affiliate.
The other thing that changes is the legal culture. We have increased to this culture, where you expect and permissible to defamation claims inspired by political performance. A trivial defamation claim was supposed to be seen as an embarrassing sign of weakness, but it is now common.
UMG is a giant company. They have obtained all the lawyers they need, so it is a much greater problem for a person like you, a journalist or any other person who wants to talk about rich and stronger people. It is not about whether they will win. It is related to abuse to the process. It is the management of public relations by other means.
