Current Events > If that Kendrick Lamar concert happened in the UK, would the girl be arrested?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Would she be arrested for a hate crime?
---

What concert,and what girl?

JE19426 posted...

What concert,and what girl?

He let a white fan on stage to rap a song that had the n-word in it. The white girl said the n-word as was in the song. Fans and the Twitter-verse cried about it. There are a lot of other topics on this board about it.
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

He let a white fan on stage to rap a song that had the n-word in it. The white girl said the n-word as was in the song. Fans and the Twitter-verse cried about it. There are a lot of other topics on this board about it.

She wouldn't be arrested in that case.

Didn't a girl in the UK get arrested recently for posting lyrics to a rap song?
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Didn't a girl in the UK get arrested recently for posting lyrics to a rap song?

Yes, and that law wouldn't apply to her in this case.

What was different about the rap lyrics case?
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

What was different about the rap lyrics case?

In the rap lyric the girl was the one broadcasting it to the public, but in this case the girl only broadcasted it to a small audience, and a company broadcasted it (I think) to the public.

JE19426 posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

What was different about the rap lyrics case?

In the rap lyric the girl was the one broadcasting it to the public, but in this case the girl only broadcasted it to a small audience, and a company broadcasted it (I think) to the public.

What about this case where a guy got arrest for singing Kung Fu Fighting in a bar?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42779407/ns/world_news-europe/t/man-arrested-singing-kung-fu-fighting/
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

What about this case where a guy got arrest for singing Kung Fu Fighting in a bar?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42779407/ns/world_news-europe/t/man-arrested-singing-kung-fu-fighting/

Edit: Looks like the police released him without charge.

JE19426 posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

What about this case where a guy got arrest for singing Kung Fu Fighting in a bar?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42779407/ns/world_news-europe/t/man-arrested-singing-kung-fu-fighting/

I don't know what about it?

They played the song to a small audience and he got arrested.
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

They played the song to a small audience and he got arrested.

and then released as it was a mistake.

Th3HonestTruth posted...

Would the company get charged instead?

Potentially, although the unscripted nation would make it preety hard to show guilt.

Th3HonestTruth posted...

Unscripted? Someone had to have intentionally broadcasted it

I'm not sure what the fact the broadcast was planned, has to do with the fact that the girl getting on stage, and saying the n was unplanned.

They girl shouldve said gooby instead of the n word
---

all because some ignorant sjws keep spouting the racist "only X color can use Y word" bullshit
---

Smh UK
---

JE19426 posted...

Th3HonestTruth posted...

Unscripted? Someone had to have intentionally broadcasted it

I'm not sure what the fact the broadcast was planned, has to do with the fact that the girl getting on stage, and saying the n was unplanned.

Broadcasters are responsible for the things they air.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Broadcasters are responsible for the things they air.

Not if they are broadcasting live, and something happens before they can stop broadcasting.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Broadcasters are responsible for the things they air.

Not if they are broadcasting live, and something happens before they can stop broadcasting.

Are you sure about that? If they're recording near a beach and just happened to get a naked child on camera I believe they'd still get in trouble for that. How can you prove it's unintentional? It seems quite hard to write into law. Do you have the source where it says there are exceptions for unintentional broadcasting?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Are you sure about that?

Pretty certain, yes.

If they're recording near a beach and just happened to get a naked child on camera I believe they'd still get in trouble for that.

Unless they have reason to believe it's quite likely for a naked child to run in front of the camera, like it's a nudist beach full of children, they wouldn't get in legal trouble. Other media groups and the public of course could still be outraged.

How can you prove it's unintentional?

The same way intentions are proved in numerous other cases. You'd use witnesses, and other physical evidence like event plans.

Do you have the source where it says there are exceptions for unintentional broadcasting?

While the Ofcom broadcasting code doesn't explicitly state that. It does make it quite clear. Again, and again throughout the code it says the broadcaster has to do their best to limit what they broadcast. Not that they have to limit it period, just that they have to do the best to do so.

Did the network get shit for that Janet Jackson nip slip?
---

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Are you sure about that?

Pretty certain, yes.

If they're recording near a beach and just happened to get a naked child on camera I believe they'd still get in trouble for that.

Unless they have reason to believe it's quite likely for a naked child to run in front of the camera, like it's a nudist beach full of children, they wouldn't get in legal trouble. Other media groups and the public of course could still be outraged.

How can you prove it's unintentional?

The same way intentions are proved in numerous other cases. You'd use witnesses, and other physical evidence like event plans.

Do you have the source where it says there are exceptions for unintentional broadcasting?

While the Ofcom broadcasting code doesn't explicitly state that. It does make it quite clear. Again, and again throughout the code it says the broadcaster has to do their best to limit what they broadcast. Not that they have to limit it period, just that they have to do the best to do so.

I believe it's fairly reasonable to believe racial slurs would be said in a rap concert where the songs in it have those words, don't you?
And I see, still seems kind of legally ambiguous and lawyers could easily argue both sides. Though I'd like to see what the code itself says.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

I believe it's fairly reasonable to believe racial slurs would be said in a rap concert where the songs in it have those words, don't you?

Sure, which is why you contact the performer and ask them what they going to preform. Then you see if they are going to use racial slurs, or allow others to use them. Then you see how likely they are to succeed at that.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

I believe it's fairly reasonable to believe racial slurs would be said in a rap concert where the songs in it have those words, don't you?

Sure, which is why you contact the performer and ask them what they going to preform. Then you see if they are going to use racial slurs, or allow others to use them. Then you see how likely they are to succeed at that.

Exactly. I'm in agreement. So then logically, if this concert was confirmed to likely have racial slurs and it was still broadcasted live because either the broadcasters not caring to look it up or looking it up but not caring they would get in trouble for that right?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

So then logically, if this concert was confirmed to likely have racial slurs and it was still broadcasted live because either the broadcasters not caring to look it up or looking it up but not caring they would get in trouble for that right?

It would depend on what information about the racial slurs was confirmed in advance.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

So then logically, if this concert was confirmed to likely have racial slurs and it was still broadcasted live because either the broadcasters not caring to look it up or looking it up but not caring they would get in trouble for that right?

It would depend on what information about the racial slurs was confirmed in advance.

What do you mean?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

What do you mean?

I'm not sure how I can be more clear. It would depend on what information they get about racial slurs.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

What do you mean?

I'm not sure how I can be more clear. It would depend on what information they get about racial slurs.

I don't think it's just what information they got. Like you said, if they went to a nudist beach and recorded a naked child they'd get in trouble for it even if they claimed they didn't know naked children would be there. Ignorance of the law isn't a valid defense in most cases.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Ignorance of the law isn't a valid defense in most cases.

Which is irrelevant to the conversation. We aren't talking about an event in which they are ignorant of the law.

Like you said, if they went to a nudist beach and recorded a naked child they'd get in trouble for it even if they claimed they didn't know naked children would be there.

I didn't say that at all. I said basically the opposite. At least from a legal perspective.

I don't think it's just what information they got.

Sure, it's also what effort they go to in order to get more information.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Ignorance of the law isn't a valid defense in most cases.

Which is irrelevant to the conversation. We aren't talking about an event in which they are ignorant of the law.

Like you said, if they went to a nudist beach and recorded a naked child they'd get in trouble for it even if they claimed they didn't know naked children would be there.

I didn't say that at all. I said basically the opposite. At least from a legal perspective.

I don't think it's just what information they got.

Sure, it's also what effort they go to in order to get more information.

JE19426 posted...

Unless they have reason to believe it's quite likely for a naked child to run in front of the camera, like it's a nudist beach full of children, they wouldn't get in legal trouble

You're saying if there's a high likelihood that something not allowed to be broadcasted would occur such as a rap concert with slurs in the lyrics of the to be performed songs and they continue to broadcast it they would get in legal trouble are you not?

Exactly, the effort. Both not trying to find out the information and putting in the effort and finding the information but disregarding it would be illegal, don't you agree? Or do you think differently?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

You're saying if there's a high likelihood that something not allowed to be broadcasted would occur such as a rap concert with slurs in the lyrics of the to be performed songs and they continue to broadcast it they would get in legal trouble are you not?

No. I'm saying they need to do the research, on what is likely to happen before broadcasting. Going "oh hey it's rap concert so there's probably going to be racial slurs" is not doing the research.

Both not trying to find out the information and putting in the effort and finding the information but disregarding it would be illegal, don't you agree?

Sure, but neither case has happened here, so you might as well say "killing a bunch of people for no reason is illegal ". You'd be just as relevant.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

You're saying if there's a high likelihood that something not allowed to be broadcasted would occur such as a rap concert with slurs in the lyrics of the to be performed songs and they continue to broadcast it they would get in legal trouble are you not?

No. I'm saying they need to do the research, on what is likely to happen before broadcasting. Going "oh hey it's rap concert so there's probably going to be racial slurs" is not doing the research.

Both not trying to find out the information and putting in the effort and finding the information but disregarding it would be illegal, don't you agree?

Sure, but neither case has happened here, so you might as well say "killing a bunch of people for no reason is illegal ". You'd be just as relevant.

But it was a rap concert that had songs with slurs in its line-up. So if they broadcasted this they either wouldn't have done their research or they would have done their research but disregarded it. Does that make sense to you?
What do you mean neither case happened here?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

So if they broadcasted this they either wouldn't have done their research or they would have done their research but disregarded it.

Or they did their research, and found no evidence racial slurs would be used.

What do you mean neither case happened here?

I don't see how I can be more clear.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

So if they broadcasted this they either wouldn't have done their research or they would have done their research but disregarded it.

Or they did their research, and found no evidence racial slurs would be used.

What do you mean neither case happened here?

I don't see how I can be more clear.

The song was in the line-up and the iteniery. How could they have done their research and not found evidence it would be used? I suppose there is a third option, they did their research poorly, but that still falls under not doing their research as best as they can, don't you think?
What cases didn't happen here, and why is that relevant?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

The song was in the line-up and the iteniery. How could they have done their research and not found evidence it would be used?

They could contacted the company and asked them about the lyrics used and been assured racial slurs wouldn't be used.

What cases didn't happen here

The cases you listed earlier in post 34.

why is that relevant?

It's not, which why I said they weren't relevant.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

The song was in the line-up and the iteniery. How could they have done their research and not found evidence it would be used?

They could contacted the company and asked them about the lyrics used and been assured racial slurs wouldn't be used.

What cases didn't happen here

The cases you listed earlier in post 34.

why is that relevant?

It's not, which why I said they weren't relevant.

Then the company would be the one responsible for lying, right? Though since the songs were in the line-up itself and could be read by any of the broadcasters attending the concert it still wouldn't have been to the best of a professional broadcaster's abilities imo. You think differently?

And I meant what do you mean by saying it hasn't happened here because this happened in the US, which has different broadcasting laws than the UK and we're just discussing a hypothetical. Were you assuming this wasn't a hypothetical the whole time?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Then the company would be the one responsible for lying, right?

Only if it can be proved they were lying, in which case they'd be guilty of fraud.

Though since the songs were in the line-up itself and could be read by any of the broadcasters attending the concert it still wouldn't have been to the best of a professional broadcaster's abilities imo. You think differently?

If a company has agreed to censor their songs, I don't see why the broadcaster should assume the company is lying. Maybe if the company has a known or rumoured history of lying about it.

And I meant what do you mean by saying it hasn't happened here because this happened in the US, which has different broadcasting laws than the UK and we're just discussing a hypothetical.

The examples in post 34 are different to the hypothetical we've been discussing.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Then the company would be the one responsible for lying, right?

Only if it can be proved they were lying, in which case they'd be guilty of fraud.

Though since the songs were in the line-up itself and could be read by any of the broadcasters attending the concert it still wouldn't have been to the best of a professional broadcaster's abilities imo. You think differently?

If a company has agreed to censor their songs, I don't see why the broadcaster should assume the company is lying. Maybe if the company has a known or rumoured history of lying about it.

And I meant what do you mean by saying it hasn't happened here because this happened in the US, which has different broadcasting laws than the UK and we're just discussing a hypothetical.

The examples in post 34 are different to the hypothetical we've been discussing.

I see. So they would be guilty of fraud. But what about if they can't prove it? They'd also have to prove that they contacted the company in the first place right?
But the company didn't censor their songs. And if they did but told someone else to come up and they broke that rule, who's responsible for that? Or is that a loophole you can exploit?
Under the hypothetical that the company didnt tell them they'd censor anything and the broadcasters still decided to show it to the public that would be them disregarding their research.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

But what about if they can't prove it? They'd also have to prove that they contacted the company in the first place right?

They'd have the phone records, or e-mails to prove it.

But the company didn't censor their songs. And if they did but told someone else to come up and they broke that rule, who's responsible for that?

The company who told someone to come up would be responsible.

Under the hypothetical that the company didnt tell them they'd censor anything and the broadcasters still decided to show it to the public that would be them disregarding their research.

Yes, if you come up with a new hypothetical situation, you'd end up with a new hypothetical situation.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

But what about if they can't prove it? They'd also have to prove that they contacted the company in the first place right?

They'd have the phone records, or e-mails to prove it.

But the company didn't censor their songs. And if they did but told someone else to come up and they broke that rule, who's responsible for that?

The company who told someone to come up would be responsible.

Under the hypothetical that the company didnt tell them they'd censor anything and the broadcasters still decided to show it to the public that would be them disregarding their research.

Yes, if you come up with a new hypothetical situation, you'd end up with a new hypothetical situation.

Yeah, the emails would be conclusive but how you can prove they said anything in phone records? What if they just call them and talk about unrelated things?
So I just want to understand you clear; what you're saying is that the responsibility is the concert company and not the broadcasting company, am I correct?
And that was the hypothetical I was going under. If you weren't I suppose there was a miscommunication.

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Yeah, the emails would be conclusive but how you can prove they said anything in phone records?

They wouldn't prove the claim but they'd be strong supportive evidence. Afterwards, if it was being investigated, the concert company would be asked about it. Whoever's doing the investigation would decide what they think is more likely.

So I just want to understand you clear; what you're saying is that the responsibility is the concert company and not the broadcasting company, am I correct?

If the concert company lied about what they have planned for the concert, or one of their employees stopped following the plans they'd be responsible, yes.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Yeah, the emails would be conclusive but how you can prove they said anything in phone records?

They wouldn't prove the claim but they'd be strong supportive evidence. Afterwards, if it was being investigated, the concert company would be asked about it. Whoever's doing the investigation would decide what they think is more likely.

So I just want to understand you clear; what you're saying is that the responsibility is the concert company and not the broadcasting company, am I correct?

If the concert company lied about what they have planned for the concert, or one of their employees stopped following the plans they'd be responsible, yes.

More likely that the concert company is lying or the broadcasting company is lying you're saying?
I see, I see.
And yeah, that's a good point. It'd be a lot more practical for whichever company was found at fault to use the employee as the one responsible. But that's not always the case is it? Like that Georgia rape case where the entire company had to compensate for their employee's actions. The reasoning was that the company shouldn't have recruited him but then it'd just be the recruiter guy's fault wouldn't it?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

More likely that the concert company is lying or the broadcasting company is lying you're saying?

Yes.

Like that Georgia rape case where the entire company had to compensate for their employee's actions. The reasoning was that the company shouldn't have recruited him but then it'd just be the recruiter guy's fault wouldn't it?

I doubt the security company, only has one person doing the hiring.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

More likely that the concert company is lying or the broadcasting company is lying you're saying?

Yes.

Like that Georgia rape case where the entire company had to compensate for their employee's actions. The reasoning was that the company shouldn't have recruited him but then it'd just be the recruiter guy's fault wouldn't it?

I doubt the security company, only has one person doing the hiring.

What if it is? Or like a few people who were this dude's friend or something. They'd have to prove it of course but assuming they did?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

What if it is? Or like a few people who were this dude's friend or something. They'd have to prove it of course but assuming they did?

Then the company would have to convince the Jury that it wasn't their fault, and it was totally reasonable for them to have a single person do the hiring.

JE19426 posted...

PtlessAgmnts posted...

What if it is? Or like a few people who were this dude's friend or something. They'd have to prove it of course but assuming they did?

Then the company would have to convince the Jury that it wasn't their fault, and it was totally reasonable for them to have a single person do the hiring.

Why doesn't this apply to the concert company too?

PtlessAgmnts posted...

Why doesn't this apply to the concert company too?

Are you being serious?