A group of prominent scholars and social scientists have taken sides in Drake’s legal battle with Universal Music Group — against Drizzy.
A new amicus (or friend of the court) brief filed in support of Universal Music Group argues rap lyrics shouldn’t be taken as statements of fact. It was written by a number of well-known legal scholars and social scientists. Among them are professors Regina Bradley (who wrote Chronicling Stankonia: The Rise of the Hip-Hop South) and Erik Nielson (who co-wrote Rap on Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America).
The scholars call for a federal appeals court to uphold the dismissal of Drake’s claim of defamation tied to Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.” Drizzy claimed that UMG promoted the track despite the company knowing the song’s claims were false.
The authors of the brief argue that Drake’s approach sets a dangerous legal precedent that could lead to racial bias in courtrooms, and has serious First Amendment implications.
“When rap lyrics are admitted [as evidence], it is because they are treated as literal,” the brief reads. “This in turn opens the door to racial bias and stereotypes in the courtroom, as empirical studies demonstrate. Treating rap lyrics as literal also threatens First Amendment speech protections, and the practice already has created a demonstrable chilling effect across the industry.”
Central to the argument is that diss tracks in rap music are centered around insults. The scholars also mention how rap has cultural roots in exaggeration, metaphor, and insult, all of which are consistent with the decades of creative expression since hip-hop’s start in the early 1970s.
“It is critically important that courts consider the particular artistic norms around rap battles when determining whether lyrics should be deemed factual representations,” the brief continues.
The participants in the brief say that even casual fans understand that diss songs shouldn’t be taken seriously (“individuals understand these performances to be contests of verbal dexterity and lyrical domination—not factual arguments or a series of news reports”), and they ask the court to recognize rap as the art form it is.
Among the articles cited in the brief to make the point that lyrics shouldn’t be taken literally is this piece in Complex by Andre Gee, headlined “Rappers Are Saying They’re ‘Cappin’ in Songs. Here’s Why.”
Drake filed an appeal over his lawsuit being dismissed back in January. In it, the rapper’s lawyers wrote, “Millions of people understood [‘Not Like Us’] to convey factual information, causing countless individuals around the globe to believe that Drake was a pedophile.”
“It is hard to imagine a statement more damaging to one’s reputation and safety than being labeled a ‘certified pedophile,’ which elicits intense vitriol, and can spur violent retaliation,” the attorneys added. “The court’s rule brushes aside the risk of concrete reputational harms that can and here did spill over into violence.”
Last month, Universal Music Group issued its own response to Drake’s appeal, claiming that it shouldn’t succeed because it aimed to “strip words from their context.” The company also suggested that Drake was just angry because he lost a rap beef.