Is posting rap lyrics on Instagram a #HateCrime?

Is posting rap lyrics on Instagram a #HateCrime?

A teenager who posted rap lyrics on Instagram has been convicted of “sending a grossly offensive message over a communications network,” which was uplifted to a hate crime. She has received a community order (probation) and must pay costs of £500 ($700 USD) together with a £85 victim surcharge.

Chelsea Russell, a 19 year-old woman from Liverpool, England posted the lyrics from American rapper Snap Dogg’s song, “I’m Trippin” (NSFW) onto her Instagram account profile, or “bio.” The lyrics in question were ‘kill a snitch n—-a and rob a rich n—-a.’

Russell claimed she posted the lyrics as a “tribute” following the death of a 13-year-old in a road traffic accident. A screen shot of her profile was sent anonymously to Merseyside Police’s Hate Crime Unit, and Russell was brought in for questioning. She attempted to claim that her Instagram was not public as only Instagram members could access it, but the Crown proved in court that anyone could see Russell’s bio.

Russell’s defence lawyer, Carole Clark, claimed that the meaning of the ‘n’ word has changed over time, and has been popularised by hugely successful and mainstream artists including Jay-Z, Eminem and Kanye West. In particular, “Jay-Z used these words in front of thousands of people at the Glastonbury festival.” Clark also pointed out that the spelling of the word ended in an “-a,” rather than the arguably more pejorative “-er.” Nevertheless, District Judge Jack McGarva found Russell guilty and added, “there is no place in civil society for language like that.”

Under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, it is an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive by means of a public electronic communications network. Section 145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for an increased sentence for aggravation related to race.

Under the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media, before heading to trial, there must be sufficient evidence that the communication in question is more than:

  • Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
  • Satire, parody, iconoclastic or rude; or
  • The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.
“Freedom of expression is applicable not only to ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State, or any sector of the population.”
—European Court of Human Rights decision in Handyside v United Kingdom (1976)
It may be tempting to see this verdict as an overreach by Crown Prosecution Services, or “political correctness” gone mad. However, the lyrics Russell chose to share don’t simply drop the N-bomb. These lyrics may be understood as encouraging killing and robbing of a particular type of person — ie, black men.

The distinction between “offensive” and “grossly offensive” is an important one and not easily made. Context and circumstances are highly relevant.  The legal test for “grossly offensive” was stated by the House of Lords in Director of Public Prosecutions v Collins [2006] UKHL 40 to be whether the message would cause gross offence to those to whom it relates – in that case ethnic minorities – who may, but need not be the recipients.

Accordingly, there is a high threshold at the evidential stage. The Crown must also consider an author’s rights of expression enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. Extreme racist speech is outside the protection of Article 10 because of its potential to undermine public order and the rights of the targeted minority (Kuhnen v Germany 56 RR 205).

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Russell’s case brings to mind the similar legal battle of Paul Chambers. Frustrated that his travel plans had been disrupted by bad weather, in 2010 he tweeted about blowing up an airport and was subsequently arrested. His conviction attracted public outroar and became a cause célèbre for freedom of speech activists before being overturned on appeal (Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] EWHC 2157).

However, there are considerable differences of fact between Russell’s Instagram bio and Chambers’s tweet. Chambers’s tweet mentioned the weather delay — the all important context — and his “threat” lacked menace, because it did not create fear or apprehension in those who read it. Russell may have been quoting a song lyric, but isolated from any other information, her words could reasonably be (mis)interpreted as a genuine threat.

Unfortunately, only limited information is available on Russell’s case, so it is not possible to fully analyse how the Crown determined that it was indeed in the public interest to pursue prosecution. I would assume however that there were some extenuating circumstances. Perhaps Russell had a history of offensive behaviour, or maybe the prosecution proved that the lyrics were intended to cause malicious upset to a grieving family?

While the legal principles and their application may be uncertain in situations such as these, this case underscores the need for a cautious approach to social media. At times, even though I recognise intellectually that my Twitter and Instagram feeds are “public,” the fact that I share personal insights and photos makes the platform seem perhaps more intimate and secure than it really is. Social media is like any other “community,” for which certain rules of decorum do apply.

Project Gutenberg: the German edition?

Project Gutenberg: the German edition?

Project Gutenberg is an American website which digitises and archives cultural works to encourage the creation and distribution of eBooks. It currently offers 56,000 free books for download, including classics such as Pride and Prejudice, Heart of Darkness, Frankenstein, A Tale of Two Cities, Moby Dick, and Jane Eyre. Many of these titles are available because their copyright protections have expired in the United  States, and are therefore in the public domain. The website is a volunteer effort which relies mostly on donations from the public.

What does it mean if a book is in “the public domain”? This term means that something (a novel, artwork, photograph or other creation) is not protected by intellectual property law, including copyright, trade mark, or patent. Accordingly, the general public owns the work, and not the individual creator. Permission is therefore not required to use the creation.

Despite the noble cause of making literature available at no or low cost to the masses, a recent ruling against Project Gutenberg has resulted in the website being geo-blocked for all visitors attempting to access the site from Germany. The claimants in the case are the copyright owners of 18 German language books, written by three authors, each of whom died in the 1950s.

In Germany, the term of copyright protection for literary works is “life plus 70 years,” as it is in the United States. However, the United States applies different rules for works published before 1978. For works published before 1978, the maximum copyright duration is 95 years from the date of publication. In the United States, the 18 books in question are all in the public domain. For the avoidance of doubt, Project Gutenberg runs on servers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and is classified as a non-profit charity organisation under American law.

Sharing and accessing the written word has changed since the 16th century! Engraving showing a publisher’s printing process, from the Met Museum.

The copyright holders of these works notified Project Gutenberg of their alleged infringement back in 2015. In early February 2018, the District Court of Frankfurt am Main approved the claimant’s “cease and desist” request to remove and block access to the 18 works in question. The claimants also requested administrative fines, damages, and information in respect of how many times each work was accessed from the website.

 

Our eBooks may be freely used in the United States because most are not protected by U.S. copyright law, usually because their copyrights have expired. They may not be free of copyright in other countries. Readers outside of the United States must check the copyright terms of their countries before downloading or redistributing our eBooks.

The Court reasoned that it was worth taking into account the fact that the works in dispute are in the public domain in the United States. This however “does not justify the public access provided in Germany, without regard for the fact that the works are still protected by copyright in Germany.” The simple message on the front page (cited above) may not be sufficient to draw users’ attention to the fact that what they are downloading may be in contravention of national copyright laws.

The judgement also cited Project Gutenberg’s own T&Cs in its decision, noting that the website considers its mission to be “making copies of literary works available to everyone, everywhere.” While this broad statement may seem innocuous and idealistic, the court used this to support its findings that Project Gutenberg could not reasonably limit itself as an America-only website.

A key point in this matter is the question of jurisdiction. While Project Gutenberg is based in the USA, the claimants successfully argued that as the works were in German and parts of the website itself had been translated into German, the website was indeed “targeted at Germans.” Furthermore, even if the website had not been intended for German audiences, that the infringement occured in Germany is sufficient grounds to bring the claim in German court.

While Project Gutenberg was only required to remove the 18 works listed in the lawsuit, the organisation has blocked its entire website in Germany to protect itself from any further potential lawsuits on similar grounds (see the Q&A here). Project Gutenberg is planning to appeal the decision.

This first published on the 1709 Copyright Blog. You can also read more at the IPKat here.

 

Fake News? How about Fake Journalist™ 

Fake News? How about Fake Journalist™ 

Last week, the New York Times filed a lawsuit against Contessa Bourbon for causing substantial damage and injury to the paper’s business, goodwill and reputation. Despite having never worked for the Times, Contessa has been representing herself as one of their reporters – both in person, and on social media.

According to the lawsuit, Bourbon pretends to be a NYT reporter to gain access to press events: she recently interviewed US Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and the Turkish Ambassador under such pretenses. Despite receiving cease and desist letters from the Times previously, Bourbon continues her charade. She tweets about articles she claims to have written for the paper, and her profiles on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram state that she is a NYT reporter.

However, with the exception of impersonating police officers or medical doctors (and in England, solicitors), simply pretending to be someone you’re not isn’t technically illegal. The problem impersonators and poseurs face is when they (almost inevitably) break laws concerning privacy matters, defamation, criminal fraud – or, in the NYT’s case – intellectual property.

Continue reading “Fake News? How about Fake Journalist™ “

Lord Hutchinson, barrister who defended “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” dies aged 102

Lord Hutchinson, barrister who defended “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” dies aged 102

In October 1960, a jury formed at the criminal court in central London was asked to consider what would become one of the most important cases in modern English history. The trial concerned neither murder, treason, nor espionage, but the publication of D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover by Penguin Books. In honour of Lord Jeremy Hutchinson QC, a member of the Penguin defence team who passed away yesterday, here is a reminder of why Regina v. Penguin Books was such an enormous decision for the freedom of expression.

First published in 1928Lady Chatterley’s Lover tells the story of a young married woman, Lady Constance Chatterley. Her husband, Sir Clifford Chatterley, is handsome and wealthy, but paralysed from the waist down after injuring himself in the First World War. In addition to his physical (read: sexual) limitations, Clifford neglects Constance emotionally: her frustration leads to her affair with the estate’s gamekeeper, Oliver. A particular sex scene and liberal use of strong language including “fuck” and “cunt” led to it being banned in several countries.

Continue reading “Lord Hutchinson, barrister who defended “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” dies aged 102″