����ֱ��

Karan Kuppa-Apte is a rising junior and Edan Kauer is a sophomore. Both are ����ֱ�� summer interns.

In American courtrooms today, song lyrics are being treated as confessions and fiction is being read as fact.

On July 24, Reps. Hank Johnson (GA-04) and Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37) reintroduced the  (RAP) Act, a bill aimed at reining in a surreal injustice in the American legal system — using artists’ creative fiction as evidence against them at trial.

This is not a hypothetical. As of June of this year, courts have seen over  where lyrics and other artistic work were presented as supposed proof of guilt. That number doesn’t include what’s buried in sealed records or never covered by the press. These aren’t smoking guns either — they’re lines from songs.

Through their creations, artists depict their struggles and bear their souls. And under the First Amendment, such creative expression is protected. Yet it is    artists in court. 

In a  celebrating the Act’s reintroduction, Johnson and Kamlager-Dove were joined by groups such as the Recording Academy, the Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), PEN America, and ����ֱ��.

Johnson pointed to the importance of this legislation in protecting “artists of color who disproportionately face scrutiny and unjust consequences stemming from their creative work.”

But the problem of treating art as evidence is not limited to rap or hip-hop. This affects all creative mediums, including film and literature. 

“Unfortunately, it has become a growing problem where artistic expression is used against artists,” said Greg Gonzalez, legislative counsel at ����ֱ��. “Their art is distorted, misconstrued, and presented as fact in court.” He added, “But these works of fiction aren’t confessions — they are creations.”

Also at the press conference was Erik Nielson, professor of liberal arts at the University of Richmond and co-author of the book Rap on Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America, which cites nearly  in which prosecutors used rap lyrics as evidence against artists. Describing his research, Nielson said he “was shocked that this could happen in a country with the First Amendment” and lauded the RAP Act as “an important first step in protecting art, regardless of who the artist is.”

Under the RAP Act, artistic works can only be used as evidence against the artist if they  relate to “” alleged in the crime or complaint that cannot be supported by other evidence. 

This means that in order to use artwork as evidence in court, the government must prove that the artist intended for it to have “a literal meaning, rather than figurative or fictional meaning.” In other words, unless the art contains things like information that only the perpetrator would know, it cannot be taken as fact and must remain out of the courtroom. 

This issue extends beyond ideological differences, and similar legislation has passed in both the Republican-led statehouse of  and the Democratic-led legislature in . Willie “Prophet” Stiggers, president and CEO of BMAC, summed it up perfectly: “It’s not a partisan issue. It’s a constitutional one.” 

We’re hopeful this bipartisan momentum will continue at the federal level. No artist should fear their work being used against them as evidence for crimes they didn’t commit. No artist should have to self-censor to avoid intense legal scrutiny. Indeed, without such freedom, many of the greatest works of American art would never have come into being.

“When creative expression is treated as criminal evidence,” said Gonzalez, “artists begin to self-censor. They hold back. They stop taking risks. And when that happens, we all lose.”