Jay-Z, Meek Mill and Others Seek to Stop Lyrics Usage in Courtrooms

In The Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand writes, “Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” This clearly shows creative expression is a selection of elements brought together by the mind.

For courts to allow lyrics to songs across all genres but especially rap is improper. Jay-Z is at the forefront with Meek Mill to ban the admittance of rap lines within the courts of law.

From the rock songs that allegedly led to the suicides of listeners of Judas Priest, the idea should not just be confined to New York but every court in the land.

Now, with hip hop being the dominant force in music, YNW Melly and Bobby Shmurda have seen their words used by the prosecution to end their freedom for a set time.

This is injustice. Art is just a way of showing the turgid and bombastic lifestyles and experiences these rappers experience. Any judge ought to toss out the notion music should be aligned with rappers on trial for their lives.

In all of the ways rappers can say they sold kilos of cocaine, raped hundreds of women, and murdered tens of people, it’s all relegated to artistic expression. This is the line that divides reality from invention.

To consider the thought that sitting down an individual in a cell based on his or her lyrics is a poor sign for the legal system. Does that mean plays, novels, films and television should be made admissible as well in the context of viewing art as the central point to criminality?

Where legislators get the idea for passing laws for facilitating the idea art can be something to point to in order to seal someone's fate is an emotional response.

Art is all about thought and emotion and is personal and objective. It has no place in the halls of Congress or the law courts in condemning people for what they think and feel.

Along with rappers like Killer Mike and others, these artists are pushing for the justice that says they should be able to form their own words and not have the law interpret their words as literal weapons.

Rappers who see their words bring them down and shackle them should be unfettered in their First Amendment right. And of course any other artist who paints or sculpts should be guarded by the freedom of speech of this land. By taking out the context of the alleged criminality of the artist and the existence of their lyricism, one can glean the reality of the difference between acts and recorded thoughts.

In every way, the art is supposed to entertain, enlighten and engage not inform about the crimes an artist did not commit. For prosecutors to use music as a way of discussing the behavior of the defendant is a serious crime against the mind. It says creative people can’t use their talents to illustrate with words their own ideas.

When the art takes precedence over evidence, witnesses, and testimony by the artist, that is a shameful display of power that should not be exerted by any court.

By harnessing the power of the Constitution of the United States, each man and woman who decides to make something new with their words should not fear being put behind bars for their offerings.

There is a way art can of course be of extreme importance in man’s lives. The estimates the artist makes in his or her expression is not limited to just the easy, the predictable, or the canned. Art ought to show sometimes shocking and stimulating truths about the world.