Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Crime Music

"Terrorist" Lyrics Land High Schooler In Jail 573

Posted by timothy
from the now-for-aesthetic-offenses-maybe dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A Methusen, Mass. high schooler, who goes by the rapper name 'Cammy Dee' has been arrested after posting lyrics that police felt were 'communicating terrorist threats.' This wouldn't be the first time rap lyrics were investigated, but if formally charged for 'communicating terrorist threats' this would a set a chilling low bar for terrorist investigations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Terrorist" Lyrics Land High Schooler In Jail

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 05, 2013 @10:50PM (#43638373)

    Really, if the police have time enough to deal with this, then clearly all the more important crimes have been resolved.

    • NRA sedition (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 05, 2013 @10:57PM (#43638415)

      The very same day, the head of the NRA said that all americans should be trained in automatic weapons for the eventual day when we have to take over our government.

      That was actually a multi-billion dollar statement in terms of cost to the US.

      Why? because now all those people who hold security positions and had to sign that they had never belonged to an organization that advocated the violent overthorow of the US govt will have to be re-investigated if they continue to belong to the NRA.

      It's basically sedition.

      • by fnj (64210) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:23PM (#43638583)

        Fool. The American people own their government by right spelled out in the Constitution. They can't "take over" what is theirs. Armed citizens are the ultimate last ditch the protection against the government being taken over by rogue elements. Go crawl back under your rock.

        • by NicBenjamin (2124018) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:50PM (#43638757)

          A couple questions:
          When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements? In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?

          In the numerous cases where the government has actually oppressed it's people (slavery, segregation, etc.), can you name a single instance of the armed citizenry stopping them?

          • by Xenx (2211586) on Monday May 06, 2013 @12:15AM (#43638915)
            Armed citizenry is kind of how we broke free and ultimately formed the nation. Just because it wasn't specifically against the US government, it isn't any less valid.
            • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 06, 2013 @12:23AM (#43638951)

              Armed citizenry is kind of how we broke free and ultimately formed the nation. Just because it wasn't specifically against the US government, it isn't any less valid.

              And the French Army, which is a small detail overlooked by libertarian revisionists.

            • by NicBenjamin (2124018) on Monday May 06, 2013 @12:43AM (#43639049)

              The Armed citizenry was part of it, but you're missing a lot. The Prussian Drill Washington instituted under Baron von Steuben was the antithesis of Armed Citizens, and even with an Armed Citizenry and an actual army Washington couldn't win until after Admiral de Grasse delivered the historic coup de grasse at the battle of Chesepeake. Armed citizens could make it difficult for the British to hold territory, but they simply could not drive the British out.

              And that was in the days when 100 guys with hunting rifles were better-armed then 100 combat troops with military-grade weapons. Nowadays military technology has moved on. A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army. What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.

              • by elfprince13 (1521333) on Monday May 06, 2013 @01:47AM (#43639275) Homepage
                And in this day and age, it takes much less skill to build things that go boom than it does to learn to shoot well.
              • A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army. What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.

                If a guy with a rifle is not a threat, then why are soldiers eissued rifles. Further why is/are democrats so worried about "domestic terrorists" (white guys) with military style weapons? You don't have to be able to conquer an army to be a threat (Just ask Lincoln, Kennedy, King, ...)

            • by dbIII (701233) on Monday May 06, 2013 @01:28AM (#43639199)
              Yep, as done by such armed civilians as General Washington.
              Sorry, but the pathetic myth of some guys with old muskets freezing in the woods winning a country alone is pissing on the graves of your ancestors who were not as stupid as you'd like to pretend they were.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by hutsell (1228828)

            A couple questions: When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements? In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?

            The Battle of Athens [youtube.com] (10:01)

            Matewan: The Problem [youtube.com] (5:40)
            Matewan: The Setup [youtube.com] (3:40)
            Matewan: The Shootout [youtube.com] (6:40)

          • by unitron (5733)

            A couple questions:
            When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements?...

            Every couple of years sometime in early November.

            Okay, technically the following January.

            Although I think it used to be March.

        • Whilst it is true that "rogue elements" have usurped control of our government, the only last ditch defence possible will be peaceful civil disobedience. Anyone retarded enough to fantasize about armed rebellion has not been paying attention.
          Eventually, this Homeland Security horseshit will become so intolerable that even the average citizen will realize that it is un-American. This, OTOH, appears to me to be a bit beyond the pale, and outside of our protected speech. I am all about unpopular opinions, I ha

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by weeble (50918)

          An armed response is not always the answer.

          Mainstream media failed to properly report the peaceful revolution in Iceland recently where the population completely replaced their government. http://rhuni.com/l/R7XUh8IIGB [rhuni.com]

          Or we can look at the revolution in Egypt where only 2% of the population marched on the capital.

      • Re:NRA sedition (Score:5, Informative)

        by russotto (537200) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:28PM (#43638611) Journal

        What you said:
        "The very same day, the head of the NRA said that all americans should be trained in automatic weapons for the eventual day when we have to take over our government."

        What NRA President Jim Porter ACTUALLY said:
        "And I am one who still feels very strongly that that is one of our most greatest charges that we can have today, is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm, so that when they have to fight for their country theyâ(TM)re ready to do it. Also, when theyâ(TM)re ready to fight tyranny, theyâ(TM)re ready to do it. Also, when theyâ(TM)re ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it."

        So training, yes. With automatic weapons, yes. But to take over our government... well, are you suggesting we're living in a tyranny, tovarisch?

        So no, the NRA is still not in that category of organizations which advocates the violent overthrow of the United States government. Nice try, though.

        • Context is important. [forbes.com] The context here is that he had, in the same speech, called Obama a "fake" president, said Eric Holder was "rabidly un-american," and that Hillary Clinton was actively trying to abolish the second amendment along with the UN.

          Whether you think those things are true is beside the point: he was pretty clearly suggesting that we were bordering on tyranny and people should be prepared to fight back, potentially against the current government, with weapons. You can't honestly tell me h
      • Re:NRA sedition (Score:4, Interesting)

        by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:29PM (#43638629)

        You cannot call this 'sedition' and still claim to follow the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment is specifically designed for exactly the purpose the NRA are stating - this is patriotism, not sedition. As far as the US Constitution is concerned 'sedition' is essentially that activity the current US Administration is undertaking whereby it is bypassing the legislature to enact 'Executive Orders' that achieve anti-Constitutional goals. Of course many in the US don't see or notice this because they mainstream media appears to supporting the bypassing of the Constitution when it doesn't align with their goals (which are socialist in nature - they talk about 'individual freedom' but are actually all for the Government dictating what is 'politically correct' for you to do; this is the anti-thesis of liberty for the smallest minority of all, the *individual*).

        I used to be a believer in gun control except the NRA pointed out how anti-Constitutional this is (and I strongly support the US Constitution, despite not being a US citizen). Then we have more practical matters, such as the fact that of the gun deaths each year 2/3 are self-inflicted suicides (if guns were not available then these people would still find a way, perhaps even more messy). Of the remaining ten thousand or so tragic deaths it is pretty safe to say there are *none* committed by NRA members. In fact, most of the deaths are caused by handguns (not by AR-15 and the like) and by criminals who have no license for the weapon (so adding more laws simply won't change that figure). What is really amazing and not reported in the media, is that good people with firearms prevent over *one hundred thousand* instances of crime because they present a firearm in their own defense (with around 2% of these weapons actually needing to be discharged). You must ask yourself, why are the media not reporting the true statistics? why is the Obama Administration not reporting these true statistics, that in a cost-benefit analysis the Second Amendment saves more lives than are taken by criminals with unlicensed weapons? why isn't it emphasized that murderous rampages are only stopped when someone, usually citizens, shoots the madman dead? why should police have a monopoly in defending citizens who are keen to defend themselves (and would rather the police arrive to interview the surviving gun owner than merely investigate the bodies left by armed criminals)? why are the statistics not used for sensible and well-informed debate?

        The answer comes back to this, the current Administration is exploiting tragedies to further its agenda in disarming the populace. Once the populace is disarmed they cannot resist the will of the Government. Instead of the citizens being the masters and the Government implementing the will of the people (or their representatives) the situation will be reversed (the citizens serve the Government). The NRA are probably much more aware of history than you are. When Hitler, Stalin etc got into power one of the first things they do was disarm the population. Socialists always do that, because it means the populace has no effective means of resisting the socialist Government. The NRA are correct in this debate and have history and the US Constitution on their side. Can you bring yourself to admit that perhaps some rednecks know more history than you do and perhaps understand the implications of the Obama Administration's "think of the children" agenda to dismember the Constitution? Amazing isn't it? So, if you care about preserving the current liberties in the US (you know, what Conservatives like to do, despite the caricatures the leftist media present to you) then perhaps you could at least listen to the arguments the NRA is making, before dismissing them as ignorant rednecks.

        Here's an article by the genius economist Thomas Sowell who goes over the cost-benefit analysis of personal firearms in US society:

        • Re:NRA sedition (Score:5, Informative)

          by TapeCutter (624760) on Monday May 06, 2013 @02:12AM (#43639353) Journal
          This may surprise you but world history cannot be acurately modeled by polarised US domestic politics.

          Neither Hitler nor Stalin were socialists, they were both ruthless totalitarian dictators, what's more they were expert propogandists, so much so that the majority of their people worshiped them (particularly Stalin who set himself up as a demigod). They didn't disarm their people they gave them "inhumane" enemies, weapons, and 20 million graves. The Nazis found so many enemies that by the end of the war one in every two native germans had spent time in a Nazi prison.

          Dictators cannot survive without the tacit support of the society they control. Dictatorial control is all about human phycology it has nothing to do with right/left politics, google "Stanford Prison expereriments" and realise that just like everybody else on the planet you also have a potential torturer/victim burried deep within your phyche. These natural human behaviours are waiting for the right environmental context to take over your thoughts and actions (Abu Graib is a recent example).

          I see two problems in the US, the first is the overt and shrill propoganda coming from certain sections of the media, in a just society their manevolent lies would be a source of embarrasment but many people do exactly the opposite and swallow the ludicrous comparison of Bush/Obama to Hitler/Stalin. This serves to demonstrate how effective propoganda is in the US.

          The second problem is the willingness of the US to lock up it's own citizens, it has the highest incarceration rate in the world, higher than China and 7X that of the EU. A very strong indication that the US is not listening to what their own research has been telling them for 40yrs.
        • Re:NRA sedition (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross AT yahoo DOT ca> on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:53AM (#43639877)

          Here is people like you don't get!

          The Connecticut shooter was a good guy UNTIL he pulled the trigger. The Colorado shooter was a good guy UNTIL he pulled the trigger! All of you NRA nutballs thinks that if we somehow manage to isolate the bad guys then the good guys can take them down like a shoot out in the OK corral! The reality is that the bad guys come from the pool we call the good guys. We only know they are bad once they have done their act.

          Simply put it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the guns out of the bad guys because they are the good guys to start off with. Yes yes some bad guys are bad guys and are able to get guns. But I ask you a simple question, how the eff did they bad guys get a gun in the first place?

          Think hard about this. Smith Wesson (good guy) makes a gun, exchange, exchange, exchange, shooter (bad guy) kills person. We started this chain with a good guy and ended up with a bad guy. How did this happen? According to the NRA it was pixie dust where the gun magically appeared and no good guy was responsible foe it. This is why gun control is not only needed, it is an absolute for it is the good guys that are coopting our society, not the bad guys doing the action. Because bad guys are just that bad guys, but it is the good guys that do business with the bad guys that are the real problems.

  • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @10:54PM (#43638399)
    Welcome to the USSA where freedom of speech means freedom to praise your government, where the right to bear arms means the right to go hunting, where the right to not be searched without a warrant doesn't apply, where due process can be ignored if the president wants you dead.
    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:12PM (#43638517)

      Welcome to the USSA where freedom of speech means freedom to praise your government, where the right to bear arms means the right to go hunting, where the right to not be searched without a warrant doesn't apply, where due process can be ignored if the president wants you dead.

      ... Just like every other government on the planet. Government power is only restrained by the People. And the people right now are fat, docile, and more concerned with who'll win the next American Idol. We're a victim of our own material prosperity... but don't worry: When enough people have become impoverished, hungry, and desperate... that'll change. Again, just like every other government on the planet that has failed.

      • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:30PM (#43638633)
        Revolutions generally end up with more problems than they solve. About the only "successful" revolutions have been people revolting against have been against a foreign power that generally doesn't provide much for them.

        Yes, the American revolution was (mostly) successful but more often than not they just trade one form of tyranny for another (Russian revolution, French revolution, etc.)

        And there has already been too much compromise made within the structure of the US government to save it beyond a complete restructuring which simply is too massive to ever realistically happen (due to stuff like precedence in the court system, the entire mess with regulatory agencies, etc. I mean just look at the number of antiquated laws on the books now!)
        • by gmuslera (3436)

          That is the dynamic of the people that drive the revolutions, the ones on top usually wants power, not fairness, not justice, even if the ones below could believe that. Current ones (i.e. Syria) probably is targetted on putting a puppet friendlier with USA and/or Israel (probably the same is in the making in Venezuela in the same direction). Others throw away a government that could be bad or not to put someone that usually is worse (think in some of the african ones, where caring about neutral civilians is

          • by dbIII (701233) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:43AM (#43639663)
            Don't kid yourself and look up "extraordinary rendition". The USA had no problems working with the current Syrian government and the rebels know it and are not very happy about it. Any replacement is going to be a bit more difficult for the US to deal with even if (and especially if) they treat their people more justly.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You are a fucking moron. First of all, you've never been to every country, second you've probably never even been outside of the USA. Stop casting your own government's failings on the rest of the world.

        Shut the fuck up unless you have firsthand experience. I've personally LIVED in countries that were much more free than the USA and had governments that the people genuinely liked.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:25PM (#43638593)

      Did you read the (short) article?

      He posted “I’m not in reality, So when u see me (expletive) go insane and make the news, the paper, and the (expletive) federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t (expletive) cry or be worried because all YOU people (expletive) caused this (expletive),” [...] “(Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!”

      You could argue that he's just a stupid teenager making a silly empty threat, but, still from the article, "D’Ambrosio was charged last year with threatening to stab his sister to death. The case was dismissed last month."

      So maybe it's worth looking into whether he's really serious or not?

      • by WGFCrafty (1062506) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:24AM (#43639607)

        The children really are treasures.

      • by chromas (1085949)
        Boasting and exaggeration of non-existent criminal acts are pretty common in rap—especially of the gangsta variety. In fact, probably just about every rappist has a song claiming that his rhymes be real while all the others be artificial bullshit—oops, I mean (expletive) (don't want to offend anyone now). For example, see Eminem (nsfw) [wikia.com].
      • The kid is definitely disenfranchised. But he's entitled to his speech not landing him in jail.

        I can't even say what would have went down if it was 20 years ago in my town and he said that kind of shit in public... because it would probably violate some kind of speech laws.

        If he's already been punished, sent to seek help for threatening to stab his sister then he shouldn't suffer more because of his current outburst.

        I did way way worse shit then sing rap songs about going crazy when I was a kid. No one char

      • by OldSport (2677879)

        Look into? Yes. Arrest for a felony and hold on $1 million bail? You have got to be kidding me.

        Yet another case of the "terrorism blank check" being used to screw people over. These days all you have to do is speak the word "terrorism" and the public will cower in fear as various government bodies shit all over the Constitution.

    • Was actually supposed to read, "the right to bare arms".

    • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday May 06, 2013 @12:13AM (#43638899)

      Old joke from Soviet times:

      Q: Is there freedom of speech in the USSA?
      A: Yes. Though it highly depends on the speech whether there's freedom after speech.

  • Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @10:55PM (#43638401)

    but if formally charged for 'communicating terrorist threats' this would a set a chilling low bar for terrorist investigations."

    Please. It's already chillingly low. How many christians have publicly said gays "should burn in hell" ? How many famous celebrities have said they would shoot government officials if they came to take their guns away? I could come up with dozens of examples of more volatile speech by talking heads on television... and god help us if I decide to include examples from that cesspool of humanity called the internet.

    Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are. It is, and always has been, about that -- not what you say. Look at the boston bomber -- muslim. Terrorist. But the Aurora shooting? Not a terrorist. Those people that blew up a shiite church in Wisconsin? Not terrorists. In fact, as long as you aren't black, or a muslim, you can probably avoid the "terrorist" label.

    The 'terrorist' label is just like the 'communist' label, and before that the 'fascist' label, and before that... you get the idea. Every generation has had their government-sponsored boogieman. Terrorist is ours.

    • The 'terrorist' label is just like the 'communist' label, and before that the 'fascist' label, and before that... you get the idea. Every generation has had their government-sponsored boogieman. Terrorist is ours.

      Nailed it, GIT. You win the Internet.

    • Just you wait. Teaching and speaking about the American Revolution will be banned as these were acts of terror. Then, some leftist groups will demand American apologize to Great Britain so as to completely absolve ourselves of any past, present, and future ties to "terrorism". Oh, and freedom of speech was another mistake the American public will need to be re-educated on. And so on and so forth....

    • by Shoten (260439)

      Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are. It is, and always has been, about that -- not what you say. Look at the boston bomber -- muslim. Terrorist. But the Aurora shooting? Not a terrorist. Those people that blew up a shiite church in Wisconsin? Not terrorists. In fact, as long as you aren't black, or a muslim, you can probably avoid the "terrorist" label.

      Um...this guy isn't even CLOSE to being black or muslim. "Cameron D’Ambrosio," and he looks too white for even that name. I mean, he's from Boston, too. Imagine a dorky white kid with a voice like the Ted (from the movie), but with a higher pitch to his voice.

    • Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Monday May 06, 2013 @02:42AM (#43639457) Homepage

      Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are.

      Glenn Greenwald has been commenting on this issue for a while with respect to the disparate law enforcement treatment Muslims receive in general, and specifically most recently in the way the Boston bombers have been labeled terrorists before there is any real knowledge of motive.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook [guardian.co.uk]

      Can acts of violence be deemed "terrorism" without knowing the motive?

      This is far more than a semantic question. Whether something is or is not "terrorism" has very substantial political implications, and very significant legal consequences as well. The word "terrorism" is, at this point, one of the most potent in our political lexicon: it single-handedly ends debates, ratchets up fear levels, and justifies almost anything the government wants to do in its name. It's hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US "shock and awe [nathannewman.org]" attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah [independent.co.uk]) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorism really means in American discourse - its operational meaning - is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies. For the manipulative use of the word "terrorism", see the scholarship of NYU's Remi Brulin [salon.com] and the second-to-last section here [salon.com].

  • by litehacksaur111 (2895607) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @10:56PM (#43638409)
    From looking at the story, it seems like some prosecutor here wants to come off as tough on crime and terrorists to further their political career. This is Aaron Schwartz all over again. This person in question is just some 18 year old who did something stupid. A reasonable punishment seems like 500 hours community service and a $1000 fine. No reason for 20 years in prison for doing something stupid that harmed no one.The average sentence for rape is around 20 years.
    • Its not even a bomb threat either! Might be a bit disturbing and might mean the guy needs some counseling but it in no way should even be considered a bomb threat!
      • by jrumney (197329) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:26PM (#43638601) Homepage

        If every musician went and got counseling instead of turning their anger into music and lyrics, we'd all be listening to Justin Beiber. Think about that next time you suggest that someone with a perfectly harmless outlet for their anger "needs counseling" because some people find what they say disturbing.

        • by muridae (966931) on Monday May 06, 2013 @02:11AM (#43639349)

          My notebooks from highschool were filled with that sort of stuff. Listen to anything from the early goth to late industrial music, from the Cure through NIN to Assemblage 23, and some of the lyrics would disturb anyone. Metal music has entire genres devoted to it.

          Point being, writing is therapy for some people. Putting the hate, rage, depression, anger, isolation, abuse, whatever into words makes it real. That's a reason writing therapy, and music therapy, are proven counseling methods. Getting those emotions out, on paper, where they can be looked at and understood is a good thing, I agree. But it can be counseling too.

    • by Libertarian001 (453712) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:28PM (#43638607)

      In other words you don't actually believe in free speech. Good to know.

      The kid is an idiot for saying that in charged political times. Doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to say it.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:31PM (#43638641)

      The reasonable punishment is ZERO. It's a song, and it is protected speech.

    • by narcc (412956) on Monday May 06, 2013 @12:13AM (#43638901) Journal

      This person in question is just some 18 year old who did something stupid. A reasonable punishment seems like 500 hours community service and a $1000 fine.

      Try this on for size: "The person in question is just some 18 year old who said something stupid. Punishment is unnecessary as he's done nothing wrong."

      See, the kid never actually threatened anyone. His little rap song was directed at no one. He even made not as himself, but as his play-pretend rapper persona.

      That goofy song of his is actually a very healthy way for him to deal with his feelings of powerlessness. Children (and even some adults) do this all the time. It's perfectly normal.

      A cute example: My wife and I were watching a friends 4-year-old. We used to keep crabs, which the little fellow really enjoyed watching -- even though he was a little bit frighted by them. To deal with those feelings, he told me about the giant robot crab that eats other crabs but (and this is the important part) doesn't eat people.

      How would you prefer that this young suburban rapper deal with his feelings? Write a story, sing a song, paint a picture, etc. or rob a store, bully other kids, do drugs, etc.?

  • by decora (1710862) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @10:59PM (#43638431) Journal

    where the white house gets attacked. why dont we lock those fillmakers up? or at least those actors spewing those hateful lines.

  • by Leuf (918654) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:01PM (#43638437)
    Umm, he wasn't arrested because of his lyrics, he was arrested because of a rant on Facebook. He seems to be trying to say that he's going to be famous because of his rapping and trying to act like a thug.
    • by jrumney (197329)

      Umm, he wasn't arrested because of his lyrics, he was arrested because of a rant on Facebook. He seems to be trying to say that he's going to be famous because of his rapping and trying to act like a thug.

      Ever seen rap lyrics? The "rant on facebook" looks suspiciously like they could be his rap lyrics to me, especially since he's boasting about becoming famous and acting like a thug.

    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      And being arrested is a major career move up the ladder for him.

    • More specifically, here is what he posted on facebook:

      “Fuck a boston bomin' wait till u see the fucking I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!”

      Last year he was in court for threatening to stab his sister to death.

  • by cultiv8 (1660093) on Sunday May 05, 2013 @11:07PM (#43638487) Homepage
    His lyrics:

    “I’m not in reality, So when u see me fucking go insane and make the news, the paper, and the fucking federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t fucking cry or be worried because all YOU people fucking caused this shit. Fuck a boston bominb wait till u see the shit I do, I’m a be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me"

    Compare that against the shit I remember in the 90s (dre, snoop dog, easy z, compton's most wanted, tupac, blah blah blah) and it's kinda poetic. Eg. Above the Law "Another Execution" and it seems like rap lyrics are getting better:

    Because I take out my weapon And I quickly start blastin', I go total loco like a crazy assasin, I look at my posse they say nothings confusin', Why? why? why? It's just another execution

    • by dgatwood (11270)

      Is it bad that the first thing that popped into my head was, "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran"?

    • by dstyle5 (702493)
      Better be careful, you just may have just popped on an FBI watch list posting that.
  • How many rap lyrics *don't* contain statements that could be construed as a specific threat?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Three. Ever.

    • Re:And... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SirSlud (67381) on Monday May 06, 2013 @12:12AM (#43638889) Homepage

      Tribe Called Quest? Jurrasic 5? J-Live? Curren$y? Drake? Jay-Z? Jungle Brothers? De La Soul? Pharcyde? Kanye? ... fuckit, that took about 5 seconds and I'm bored already. I'm even too bored to google for delicious metal lyrics. As an intelligent, employed, classically musically trained white guy from the burbs, I feel sad for folks who really think they're "above" rap. You don't have to like it, but it's no smarter or dumber than any other genre.

  • Come on now, no need to go into armchair revolutionary panic mode. Terroristic threatening is a common statutory criminal offense. It doesn't imply that the perpetrator is a member of a terrorist cell or that our liberties are being attacked. It's sort of like an assault, just a little more specific and serious.

    Generalized definition of a terrorist threat:
    1. Willfully threaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm.
    2. Make threat with the specific intent that it be taken as a threa

  • by Molochi (555357) on Monday May 06, 2013 @02:36AM (#43639435)

    It's right now. Deal with it.

  • How can the bar go any lower when it comes to the US judicial system ?
  • by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh@@@gmail...com> on Monday May 06, 2013 @10:05AM (#43641777) Journal

    "My lyrics are terrorism, gave the police a schism, they threw me in jail because my words are like bullets in 'em"

Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in BASIC after reaching puberty.

Working...