Drake v UMG: Why the Not Like Us lawsuit isn't over

Summary

FAME UNDER FIRE – "Drake v UMG: Why the Not Like Us lawsuit isn't over" (May 21, 2026)
Host: Anushka Mutanda-Doughty | Guest: Dr. Sean Kent

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Fame Under Fire digs into the ongoing legal dispute between rapper Drake and Universal Music Group (UMG), centering on the label’s alleged role in promoting Kendrick Lamar’s explosive diss track "Not Like Us." Host Anushka Mutanda-Doughty and lawyer/Constitution expert Dr. Sean Kent dissect why the widely publicized lawsuit is not over, what’s at stake regarding music, the law, and the First Amendment, and how the precedent could echo across hip hop and the broader world of art.

---

Key Topics & Timeline

1. The Backstory and Lawsuit’s Core (03:08–05:29)

• Drake’s Grievance: Drake (Aubrey Drake Graham) sued UMG—not Kendrick Lamar—alleging the label artificially boosted "Not Like Us" streams and unfairly damaged his career and reputation by aiding the track’s massive spread.
• Alleged Damages: Drake's suit claims UMG promoted Kendrick’s track to devalue Drake as his contract neared its end, giving the label leverage in negotiations.
• Defamation Per Se: Central to the legal fight is whether Kendrick’s accusations (in the song, implying Drake is a pedophile) constitute defamation or protected satire.

QUOTE:
"[Drake] filed it against his record label almost as a tacit co-conspirator, that they were down with the obscene and awful things said about him." – Sean Kent (03:29)

---

2. Legal Concepts: Defamation, Motive, and Dismissal (05:29–10:19)

• Defamation vs. Defamation Per Se: Explanation of the legal terms and how "per se" cases presume harm without the plaintiff needing to prove it (e.g., accusations of criminal acts).
• Motive: While not strictly required, Drake’s complaint paints UMG’s motive as financial manipulation, which appeals to a jury’s desire for a compelling “why.”
• Dismissal Details: Judge dismissed the suit in late 2025 under Rule 12(b)(6), stating that Kendrick’s lyrics were non-actionable opinion, “satirical at best,” and that Drake, by engaging in rap beef, had invited strong language.

QUOTE:
"When you read a judge say that, you kind of know where this opinion is going to come on. …38 pages of that is the opinion of what we just read: the court saying, 'there's just nothing here.'" – Sean Kent (09:25)

---

3. The Appeal and Drake’s Counterarguments (10:19–12:03)

• Why Appeal?: Drake’s lawyers argue the judge overstepped by referencing rap’s broader context and industry feuds—outside the original complaint—without giving them a chance to rebut.
• The Real Question: Is a diss track “opinion” or actionable defamation? And does rap beef get a different legal standard due to its performative conventions?

---

4. Amicus Briefs and Their Significance (12:03–16:25)

• Amicus Briefs Explained: "Friends of the court" filings from legal experts, rap scholars, and organizations worried about the case’s potential legal precedent and impact on artistic freedom.
• Key Concerns: If courts treat rap lyrics as literal fact, it risks racial bias and undermines rap’s rich tradition of metaphor, exaggeration, and persona-building.
• Consent Argument: One brief likened the Drake-Kendrick conflict to “mutual combat”—both entered a lyrical fight, so suing after losing is akin to “challenging someone to fisticuffs and then suing them for battery” (16:25).

QUOTE:
"They compare the battle between Drake and Kendrick to a literal fight. …The two individuals got into a consensual fight, a mutual combat, if you will. And one got beat up and now he's complaining about it." – Sean Kent (15:37)

---

5. Artistic Persona, Rap History, and Racial Bias (16:32–19:09)

• Persona and Performance: Expert Jack Lerner’s amicus brief stresses that rap is “an extension of the Black American tradition of oral storytelling…exaggeration, metaphor, and wordplay.”
• Real vs. Stage Names: The genre’s reliance on personas (e.g., Eminem, Young Thug) complicates literal readings in court.
• Example: Young Thug’s Trial: Creative lawyering can open dangerous doors; courts must be careful about turning performance into confession.

QUOTE:
"We tend to forget that a lot of these guys in the rap game are pure, unadulterated exaggerators. And so if we're not careful in saying that everything they say is truth, then you're going to start requiring them to put everything in there in truth." – Sean Kent (19:39)

---

6. First Amendment: Freedom of Expression (21:19–24:04)

• What is Protected? Artistic works are generally covered under the First Amendment—including satire, parody, and hyperbole—but there are limits (e.g., actual criminal acts or dangerous speech aren’t protected).
• Protection is Not Absolute: Artistic expression shields from criminal liability, not always civil lawsuits, and doesn’t permit profiting from crime (slayer statutes).

QUOTE:
"The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect your freedoms of speech, to protect your right to redress against the government, to protect your right to be able to say what you want, how you want." – Sean Kent (21:26)

---

7. Precedent and the Wider Impact (24:04–27:50)

• Other Cases: The same First Amendment questions arise in cases around Ye (Kanye West) and in the high-profile criminal trial of rapper David—raising the stakes for how courts handle lyrics as evidence.
• Potential Chilling Effect: If Drake’s suit prevails, any hostile lyric could be used literally in court, potentially exposing countless rappers and other musicians to prosecution or lawsuits.

QUOTE:
"We want to be careful creating a precedent that if Drake is allowed to say that everything that rappers say is true, then there’s going to be an argument all the way across the country… if you put some of this stuff in song and people take it as true, then… you could be looking at criminal consequences and they could be used against you." – Sean Kent (26:36)

---

8. Forward-Looking Updates (27:50–28:35)

• David Case Watch: Preliminary hearings remain pending; this “lyrics as evidence” debate will be crucial.
• Parties’ Silence: No comment from UMG, Drake, or Kendrick at time of recording.

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• On the legal battle’s public perception:
  “People genuinely believe this. And he also goes into something else, which is motive. And I don't think you actually need motive in a defamation case, do you?” (Anushka, 06:53)

• On artistic exaggeration:
  “If we start creating…this is a form of expression…It should never be forced to be a form of everything you say is the truth, and it should never be, ‘Dear Diary, this is how I readily expressly feel.’” (Sean Kent, 20:15)

• On the First Amendment’s limits:
  “You have the freedom of speech. But that could cause immediate harm…That is not necessarily protected.” (Sean Kent, 21:26)

• On the potential chilling effect:
  “…if you create a situation where rappers are saying and artists, musicians are saying, if you put some of this stuff in song and people take it as true, then you could be looking at criminal consequences and they could be used against you. It will stiffen our freedom of expression.” (Sean Kent, 27:36)

---

Summary Table of Important Timestamps

| Time | Segment / Topic | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------| | 03:08 | Drake’s Lawsuit Basics | | 05:29 | Legal Concepts: Defamation, Motive | | 08:26 | Why the Judge Dismissed the Case | | 10:19 | Drake’s Appeal Arguments | | 12:03 | Amicus Briefs Introduction | | 16:32 | Artistic Persona & Rap’s Legal History | | 21:19 | The First Amendment and Artistic Expression | | 24:15 | Broader Legal Precedents (Ye, David Cases) | | 27:50 | Impact: “Lyrics as Evidence” and Future Cases |

---

Takeaways

• Drake’s UMG suit remains alive on appeal—the judge rejected his original claim, but new arguments and “amicus” input mean much is at stake.
• Rap’s unique use of narrative, hyperbole, and persona poses special challenges for traditional legal frameworks—the way courts treat lyrics now will shape the climate for all artists.
• At heart, this is a battle between reputation, free speech, and the unique culture of hip hop—and the consequences go well beyond Drake, Kendrick, or UMG.

---

Listen for: Sparky, fast-paced exchanges, Sean Kent’s accessible legal explanations, and a fresh look at how the law is racing to catch up with music and the internet era.

Transcript

[BBC Announcer]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[Instacart Advertiser]

Let's talk groceries. Specifically your groceries. With Instacart, you want your groceries just the way you like them, right? Well, the Instacart app lets you do just that. They have a new preference picker that lets you pick how ripe or unripe you want your bananas. Shoppers can see your preferences up front, helping guide their choices. Instacart, get groceries just how you like.

[Stitch Fix Advertiser]

Stitch Fix. Stop shopping. Get styled a plus on the outfit. Ms. Turner, you are about to slay parent teacher conferences.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Oh, these just the most perfect fitting jeans my stylist sent me. Oh, hello, you who didn't set one foot in a mall and still looks amazing.

[Stitch Fix Advertiser]

Just share your size, style and budget and your stylist sends personalized looks right to your door. Stitch Fix, get started today@stitch fix.com to my stylist, this look is dedicated to you.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Thank you, thank you.

[Sean Kent]

Foreign

[Anushka Matandadawati]

hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matandadawati. Now stop what you're doing right now. Open up YouTube on your phone, your laptop, your smart fridge, type in Fame Under Fire and subscribe to our YouTube channel, the Fufniverse, or Fufniverse, depending how you say it has expanded. We have extra eps on there, some behind the scenes, and we like reading your questions, which you can put in the comments. And when Shaun comes to the UK in July, I'm gonna strap a GoPro to his and watch him walk around the shops in Mayfair and see how much damage he gets done. But today we're gonna be talking about Drake. He's dropped three albums, you know that. But peppered throughout those tracks are references to his relationship with his current label, Universal Music Group, potentially former label. We're waiting for him to announce whether he's moved on. On tracks like B's on the Table, he says things like, I'm suing the man, not the rapper. That's in reference to his lawsuit against Universal Music Group and I'll make them remember. He says he's something like the golden goose shaking things up at Lucien's house. That's a reference to Luc Grange, the CEO of umg. Now, like I said, Drake has been actively suing Universal music group since January 2025 for their promotion of the diss track Not Like Us by Kendrick Lamar. A lot of people saw the headlines that the judge had dismissed that lawsuit and thought that this was over. It was the end of the road for Drake's legal battle. That's not true. It's actually still fighting its way through the Second Circuit appeals court, and there are a lot more people involved in it. Now. This is a legal battle about rap in the courtroom, art on trial, and our favorite thing, the First Amendment. So it's only right that we have a Constitution. Nerd joining me. He's been in Akin somewhere, or wherever that is. He's been in Akin somewhere. It's Sean Kent. Dr. Sean Kent.

[Sean Kent]

Hey, Anushka, how are you doing?

[Anushka Matandadawati]

I'm good. How was Aiken?

[Sean Kent]

I need you to never do that Southern accent again.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

If anyone's seen the film Beautiful Creatures, it's set in Akin. That's why I know it.

[Sean Kent]

Yes, but that might be. That might be as bad as my British accent.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

I'm an aching mama. Nobody gets out of aching mama.

[Sean Kent]

I got nothing again.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

And when I apply for citizenship, this is what they'll play. So for those of you who aren't aware, don't know, somehow miss the Drake legal battle with umg. We're going to speed through that. If you're with us on YouTube, you can actually jump to the section on amicus briefs for the latest update. But we're going to get into some things. Sean, can you just remind us why Drake, Aubrey Drake Graham, is suing Universal Music Group?

[Sean Kent]

Aubrey, of course, everybody remembers the famous song Not Like Us that came out that Kendrick released. Drake was very offended, if you will, that the song depicted him as a pedophile. And so he was so upset with this. But really behind the scenes, what he was actually saying, according to the lawsuit, is that his record label was artificially inflating the numbers of Kendrick. And by artificially inflating the numbers of Kendrick, he artificially made this song a bigger hit than it was, taking it to a wider audience than it should have been. And then what it was doing is some of the lyrics in there were so offensive, according to him, it caused him a level of unspecified damages, one with his label, two with Worldwide. And so he had such a problem with this that he said, I'm going to follow suit. Now, he did not file the suit against the person who actually said the lines. He did not file it against Kendrick. He filed it against his record label almost as a tacit co conspirator, that they were down with the obscene and awful things that were said about him. So he went after his record label that said that you guys had a systematic way of trying to ruin my career.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

It was interesting because, like you say, a lot of people, he'd Assumed he'd sued Kendrick Lamar, but Universal Music Group was actually his label as well. But he spoke about some of those practices, like white listing, so removing the restrictions on a particular track so streamers can play it in full. And he claimed that this was some of what UMG were doing to bolster the streams on Not Like Us. I mean, Not Like Us. It was everywhere. It really was everywhere. I mean, he was performing it at shows like, six, seven times back to back. Now, in response to claims that Universal had deliberately harmed Drake's career, the label noted it had invested massively in his music, helping him achieve historic commercial and personal and financial success, which he has. And I just want to get into one thing here. It was defamation per se, not just your regular old defamation. Sean, can you just flesh out what the difference is?

[Sean Kent]

And defamation, of course, as everybody understands, defamation is basically, you can't talk trash about somebody else. But in the world, there is a healthy level of trash talking. Now, when you go to trial and you accuse somebody of defamation, usually you have to prove that the comment that they made was defamatory. Some of the stuff that Anoushka says about me and her elder abuse towards me could be seen as defamatory. However, I would have to go to a court and prove that the things that she has said against me are defamatory. And somebody was like, no, she's just joking. It's not defamatory. We throw your case out. Now, there's certain actions under the law that if you say them just by saying them, just by uttering them, the court says that is what's called defamation per se. It is defamatory on its face. If you do something that directly affects somebody's job and career, like, you know, some of these Google review people who talk about somebody's business, if you directly affect their business, and in this situation, if you accuse somebody of committing a crime in that situation, Drake is saying Kendrick accused him of being a pedophile. And for anybody uninitiated out there, that's a crime. And so the court says if you accuse somebody of this, by itself, in and of itself, it is defamation per se, which means you don't have to prove it and damages are presumed and you just have to prove how damaged you are.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

And he goes into some other things. In his original complaint, he includes screenshots of people online showing that the general public believed that he was a pedophile, believed that he had committed abuse against minors. So there's comments like, quote, I love this song. We would never have known that Drake is a whole pedophile if this information wasn't exposed, which obviously Drake denies. But he's therefore showing like actual damages. People genuinely believe this. And he also goes into something else, which is motive. And I don't think you actually need motive in a defamation case, do you?

[Sean Kent]

You don't, you don't need motive in any case realistically in the United States. But it's, you know, if you're on a jury, everybody wants to know the why. So all lawyers realize you try to prove the why, you just don't need it.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

So he basically says, quote, the leadership of Interscope, that's the record label owned by umg, had every incentive to prove it could maximize Kendrick Lamar's sales. After only recently persuading him to enter into his own direct license for a limited recording commitment of new music, they'd gone into new business with Kendrick. Whereas it continues, quote, UMG's contract with Drake was nearing fulfillment. And on information and belief, UMG anticipated that extending Drake's contract would be costly. By devaluing Drake's music and brand, UMG would gain leverage to force Drake to sign a new deal on terms more favorable to umg. So this was the basis of his complaint. He's got his cognizable damages, he's got his. People genuinely believe this, he's included motive there. If this went to a jury trial, but this was actually dismissed in October 2025 by a judge, but not dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can be raised again. If it's dismissed with prejudice, it's gone for good.

[Sean Kent]

You got it.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Why did the judge dismiss? Dismiss this?

[Sean Kent]

There's a Federal Rule 12B6, which allows the judge to dismiss a complaint, the lawsuit on its face, and say there's nothing there, there's no issues that we have to discuss. And so when the judge read the complaint and listened back to both parties made the decision to dismiss. One of the things that sometimes this is a 38 page opinion and we always talk about the fact. How do you get to the opinion to determine what the judge is going to do? But when you read like the first paragraph, the penultimate song of this feud, Not Like Us by Kendrick Lamar, dealt the metaphorical killing blow. When you read a judge say that, you kind of know where this opinion is going to come on. And then the next line, the song contains a lyric explicitly accusing Drake of being a pedophile, set to a catchy beat and a propulsive baseline. What that is literally from the judges opinion.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

The judge is like, you're gonna get all of my opinions.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah. And I feel like, you know, and then the next line on this one paragraph, not like us went on to be a cultural sensation, achieving immense commercial success and critical acclaim. If I'm Drake and this opinion got released and I read the first paragraph, I just slide it over. I'm like, I think I know how this movie ends. But long and short, what the court ended up saying is they went to the first thing, they started talking about defamation and. And they said, nabra, this is not defamation. You have invited this, if you will. This is satirical at best. And 38 pages of literally what they talking about? They talking about nothing. What they talking about? They talking about nothing. What they talking about? They're talking about nothing. 38 pages of that is the opinion of what we just read of the court saying, there's just nothing here. And we don't need to get to the discovery statute. We don't need to get to any of this part. We're done.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

So Drake's original civil complaint has been dismissed, but he has taken the decision to appeal that. So the judge says, it's non actionable opinion. What does that mean?

[Sean Kent]

I mean, literally, the answer is in your definition, it's non actual opinion. It is literally like you and I talking right now. It is not defamation. It is rap lyrics. It's him just offering his opinion. It's him just talking trash. And it does not get to the level that this should be quantified and talked about as if it's defamation. These are literally a genre that allows people to exhibit free speech. And because you have known it, because you have invited it. And one of the arguments in the appeal that Drake's team is making, and I'm glad you brought this up, is Drake's team is saying throughout the opinion, if you read it, the judge harkens ton talks about other songs and other rap songs and how they have created this beef and how there's other references and things of pedophilia and some type of other songs. Drake's team is saying, look, you ruled on this via 12B6 on the complaint, which is the four corners of the document. It is not fair that you have made this ruling taking other things out that we didn't get to argue. Remember, initially at a summary judgment station, they both get to argue and talk about the fact they did all the discovery. At a 12B6. The judge said, I've ruled on the complaint. Their problem is the judge ruled on the complaint, but talked about stuff outside of the complaint. That Drake's team did not get to argue that they thought was patently unfair. Fair. But the court said, look, this is a rap beef. This is Drake. You invited it, if you will, in some points of this. So they said it is literally non actionable opinion because it's going back and forth and you should not be able to benefit from that with which you caused.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

That was the slight addition to the previous episode we'd done on that, and all the parties were present. UMG being the defendant, Drake being the claimant. Kendrick's in the ether somewhere watching, probably laughing. We've got the judge. But then came a bunch of other people. And I'd never seen this happen before because I remember I called you and I was like, who the heck is smiling? Sean, explain to me amicus briefs.

[Sean Kent]

It is a Latin phase, amicus curi, which literally translates to friends of the court is what that means. An amicus brief is basically the nosy neighbor who has nothing to do with anything. Was just like, I won't be a part of this. And just like peeking is like, what are y' all talking about? But what ends up happening is somebody is watching this case. And I'm not saying this is what happened in this situation, but somebody is watching this case and said, the decision that is going to come out of this case is going to have such far reaching effects on other people. We want to petition the court so we can be heard. Because remember, we talk about precedent. And once a court sets out a precedent or a law, it is a controlling law for everybody potentially in a situation. And so some other folks are out there saying, we think this is bad. So there was two amicus briefs filed, one out in California, a group of lawyers, a group of experts, a group of rap folks. And when you read the opinion, it's, they're hammockus. I always picture that they're doing it in some type of auction like this and saying, you know, rap music affects everybody. And according to us, we feel that this is completely unfair when it's a bunch of legal rap callers. And that's what they said. Anaki are a nationally recognized experts on the use of rap lyrics in court.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Okay? If you ever hear Sean go silent or he goes off mike, it's because he's giving a full performance here. And you don't know that. If you subscribe to our YouTube channel, Sean, tell him to subscribe.

[Sean Kent]

The facial expressions are everything.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Sean, tell him to subscribe to the channel.

[Sean Kent]

Subscribe, subscribe, subscribe, period, period, period. But so what these amicus folks are, are literally, they come in and they have to get permission. Okay. They can't just like you talked about the fact initially, you're just going to write an amicus brief. No, you can't just Anushka has a problem with this. No, they go to the court. They go to the court and they say, we have a vested interest in this. And so let me give an example of why this is important and it does make sense and something no one is talking about. The amicus brief are experts. They are individuals who are trying to protect the Constitution. So let's say for argument's sake, the judge ruled that, you know what, Drake, those lyrics are awful. He should not be able to use those against you. Those are true. These are bad. Well, let's talk about some of the far reaching effects. Let's say the prosecutor then and back up. Let's say that the judge says we believe the things that he said are true and the world thinks they are true. And this is awful. Well, what are the far reaching effects? Let's go to a case we've talked about before, David. So the prosecutors in David will say, well, that judge in New York, the federal district has ruled that when you rap stuff, it is true, it should be allowed to be utilized. Romantic homicide, the case by the song by David, you know what, we're allowed to use rap lyrics against everybody. That is true. It's allowed to be utilized against him. And so that's why this group has gotten involved, because they're like, look, your decision is going to have bigger effects just than on Aubrey. They're going to have effects on anybody out there. It's going to have a chilling effect on anybody who is engaged in the rap music genre. Then when you couple that with the amicus fail by the Yale case, one of the more interesting lines from that case, Anoushka, that I thought was fascinating. They compare the battle between Drake and Kendrick to a literal fight. And they say the two individual. And they talk about the word consent. And they said the two individuals got into a consensual fight, a mutual combat, if you will. And one got beat up and now he's complaining about it. And it's so simple. But that's what they're saying is like, you can't do this. Consent should have been argued by umg. And they did not argue that. And we want the court to consider that this is a consensual stupid relationship.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

It's like challenging someone for, I'm going to say fisticuffs But I feel like you're fisticuffs.

[Sean Kent]

You're exactly right. That's the language.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Fisticuffs and then suing them for battery. Okay, so we've got these amicus briefs. You've just outlined the argument of consent, which is in one. There's another one that was penned by Jack Lerner. He's a professor at the University of California with the assistance of multiple scholars. And there's some interesting points. It says when courts ignore rap music's history and artistic conventions, the effect is to deny rap the status of art and instead to flatten the lyrics into literal confessions or statements of specific intent. Rap is an extension of the blog Black American tradition of oral storytelling and signifying, a technique that incorporates exaggeration, metaphor, and wordplay. And there's a whole argument that they make off the back of this about racial bias and what happens if you allow particularly rap lyrics into the courtroom. And then they also say, which is very interesting. Stage names and public Personas are big in the rap industry. They're a defining feature of the genre. Rap artists routinely create fictional characters under which they perform. Marshall Mathers performs as Eminem. Jeffrey Williams performs as Young Thug. And I want to talk to you about Young Thug because your friend Brian Steele represented him.

[Sean Kent]

Absolutely.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

You guys might remember Brian Steele from the Diddy trial. He came in late, but he was on Diddy's defense team. And he is in a weird full circle moment. Also, Drake, like, wrote a song about him. Where's your song? Right, right.

[Sean Kent]

Somebody else, right? I want a song, right?

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Yeah, yeah, get on that.

[Sean Kent]

I think I want, like, Barry Manilow singing the hook. Is that. Is that weird?

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Luther Vandross, that Kentucky Fried Chicken.

[Sean Kent]

Well played.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

But you say. We've talked about this before. The First Amendment. The First Amendment protects certain rights. And part of that is art, artistic expression that is protected by the First Amendment. You're looking at me like I'm getting this wrong.

[Sean Kent]

No, I'm very excited where this is going. You see, I've got a little Grinch smile on my face.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Okay, so in this amicus brief, they're saying if you flattened rap and you remove its status as art, you take the lyrics as factual allegations, you deny its place in the history of its musical conventions. Right?

[Sean Kent]

Yeah.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

But your friend Brian very famously said in his opening statement for Young Thug in the Young Thug trial. Young Thug was spent more than 900 days in custody after being arrested in 2022 on racketeering and gang related charges. But he later released after pleading guilty to gang, drug and gun charges. But Brian Steele says during the opening statements that thug means truly humbled under God. And that's what the name meant to Young Thug. But that was the argument that was made.

[Sean Kent]

Creative lawyering goes a long way in courtrooms sometimes.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

But what about. So if he's opened that door to say that, well, actually, Young Thug's not a thug because thug means truly humbled

[Sean Kent]

under God, I would have been very careful about that because that would have opened. You gotta love your legal analysis. You're exactly right. Something of that, if you're not careful, could completely open the door to put any. But you could have put anybody else on the stand at that point in time and say what Young Thug actually means. That is gold star for Marcus.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

That is gold star for Marcus.

[Sean Kent]

That is a absolutely wonderful bit of legal analysis. And what. You have to be careful with this Anushka. And I mean, I agree. I love what the amicus briefs were saying. We tend to forget that a lot of these guys in the rap game are pure, unadulterated exaggerators. And so if we're not careful in saying that everything that they say is truth, then you're going to start requiring them to put everything in there in truth. A notoriously perfect example is 50 Cent. You know, when he sings a lot of his song 50 don't drink, 50 don't do drugs. But if you look at most of his songs early in his career, he said, yeah, I just put that in there because I thought that what people want to hear, because I just want to make money. And that's what a lot of them are doing. And a lot of them are talking about fighting and killing and so forth. It's an exaggerated form of expression. And if we start creating. And that's what these amicus priests are saying, this is a form of expression. This is a form of exaggeration. At some point in time. It should never be forced to be a form of everything you say is the truth, and it should never be, Dear Diary, this is how I readily expressly feel.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

But. And I understand all of that, and it needs to be protected. And I get that. And surely if you open the door to rap lyrics, you can open the door to things like heavy metal. They say crazy stuff. I was going to try and do ages ago. When we did the hip hop episode on Diddy, we were looking at some heavy metal lyrics as well. I couldn't believe it. I could not believe it. Yes. Well, me. Oh, my.

[Sean Kent]

Oh, my God. That's when your Southern accent should come in.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

I ain't nobody getting out of I can.

[Sean Kent]

From now on, you just say, bless your heart. That is our Southern phrase. When you want to say nice or mean about something, you say, bless your heart.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Bless your heart. I'm getting there. I'm getting there. What actually is the First Amendment? No, I sound stupid.

[Sean Kent]

The First Amendment to me, and you said it. It is sacrosanct. It is as important of amendment. It is an important rule in our country, and it is, and it is currently under attack. Why is it currently under attack? Because the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect your freedoms of speech, to protect your right to redress against the government, to protect your right to be able to say what you want, how you want. Now, your speech level only goes that far. You cannot do things that are going to cause anyone else physical harm. The example that is often used in law school in Nushka is you cannot run into a crowded theater and yell, fire. Yes, you have the freedom of speech. But that could cause immediately harm because everybody could run out of there and hurt themselves. That is not necessarily protected. But we have a right to express ourselves. We have a right to talk about our leaders. We have shows such as Saturday Night Live, things of these nature, comedians, rappers who have the right, even though you may not like it, they have a right to say some of the most onerous, awful expressions they want. And that's one of the things like this is freedom of expression, freedom of art, freedom of music. It all goes into our actual expression, Anushka, when we talk about it. And so we have had battles throughout history and it talks. I mean, this goes as far as what is art? Is pornography art? It all goes into the right that we as people have a right to express ourselves and our values and our beliefs that we feel are necessary. And so that's one of the reasons this amicus brief is so strong on both ends, because people understand that an artistic freedom, the right for people who to be different, to express themselves different, is sacrosanct and important in being an American.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

You speak about art being part of freedom of expression, and they talk about flattening rap lyrics, and I get all of that. But how far does that protection last? And walk with me here. If you commit a crime and then turn the crime into art, is it protected? Like if I killed you and turned you into a statue? What if I killed you and painted a canvas with your this is getting dark with your blood. Shout out Vampire Diaries. Would that be protect? Could someone argue that that's protected because it's artistic expression.

[Sean Kent]

If you cause somebody's death, you're not allowed to profit. We have statutes out there, we have slayer laws that prevent people from profiting over their criminal actions. The crime. You can still be convicted of the crime, but.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Yeah, you still be convicted of it.

[Sean Kent]

Absolutely. You can be convicted of the crime, however. And do you have a right to talk about it, saying about if you use your common sense and just look at it, how many times have they interviewed individuals on jail, I mean, on death row and things of this nature? And they've done interview and things of this nature, so you're still protected. But then they do a little caveats around there to make sure you cannot profit.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

And I wanted to really focus in on the First Amendment protections because, yes, it's central to the amicus briefs that are being written in the Drake case, but it's also central to the David case.

[Sean Kent]

Absolutely.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

And it's central to multiple Kanye west cases. I want to zero in on Kanye west right now because Kanye is using the First Amendment as a defense against accusations of anti Semitism. He took out his full page in the Wall Street Journal to apologize to the African American community and the Jewish community. This isn't the only place he's using it. But we're going to use this example. In one case where he's being sued by an employee who claims she heard him use anti Semitic slurs. His lawyers wrote, quote, ye is not merely a creator, he is art. Ye's public and private Personas form a continuous, provocative performance that challenges societal taboos surrounding race, religion, gender power, politics, and censorship. So if you declare that you are art, you can get away with anything with a very literal reading of the First Amendment.

[Sean Kent]

No, when we talk about protection, we mean from criminal liability. When we talk about First Amendment protection, we talk about the fact that you're not going to go to jail for the stuff that you have said. You will not lose your freedom. So when we say freedom of expression, we need to channel that first word, freedom. You're not going to lose your freedom for saying stuff. Now then we go to our civil context. Can you be sued? Absolutely, because you do have a right to say it. But if you offend somebody and do these certain things, you do have the right to be sued. So the person who said so Kanye saying, I'm allowed to say this offensive stuff. You absolutely are, and now I'm going to sue you for it. So you understand they're two totally different spectrums. So I do think Kanye has the right to say some of the stuff that he says. And I also have the right to be offended. And then the question is, does my offense rise to the level of actionable, cognizable damages?

[Anushka Matandadawati]

And you mentioned earlier, the other case, of course, is David, where he's been accused of the murder, dismemberment, and continuous sexual abuse of Celeste Rivas hernandez, who was 13 at the time of that sexual abuse and died at 14 years old. David has entered a not guilty plea on all charges. A lot of his artwork, as pointed out by his, I guess, fans, Internet users, focuses around tumultuous romantic relationships and death. There is a music video where he is dragging a body across the floor. We do see later on that that body is also him and he puts it inside of the trunk of a car. If the door is opened on the Drake case, does it open the door for a David case?

[Sean Kent]

Yes. And that's why the amicus brief is such a big deal. And I love that you've asked that question, because that's the whole point of why the amicus is getting involved. They're like, we want to be careful, creating a precedent that if Drake is allowed to say that everything that rappers say is true, then there's going to be an argument all the way across the country. Because remember, one's filed in New York and one's happening in California. And some prosecutor in California is going to say, you see what the federal court has said, your honor, they have said that all rap is true. And then it's just like him dragging a body means he must have been killing people. And therefore, we should put this in front of the jury. And that's what, if you read the amicus, they're like, juries believe once they hear some of the stuff that these folks say in rap song, they automatically believe it's true. And so we have to stop it has a chilling effect on the first Amendment and freedom of expression and what it will do. And I know some people will say, so get rid of it. We don't like that rap music anyway, Dilbert. I can't stand it. But what will end up happening is if you create a situation where rappers are saying an artist, musicians are saying, if you put some of this stuff in song and people take it as true, then you could be looking at criminal consequences and they could be used against you. It will stiffen our freedom of expression. And we want people to be free to express themselves.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

With that David case that we're talking about, that we don't even know if that's going to go to trial. David has entered a not guilty plea on all charges. We've got that preliminary hearing right now scheduled for June 29th and that status conference on the 17th of June. And you know, me and Sean will be covering that. We did ask both Universal Music Group and Drake for a comment. I'd wager Drake is a bit busy. We haven't immediately heard back from either of them and Kendrick Lamar has yet to comment on the case. I'm sure if he does so it will be in the form of sweet music. Sean, thank you so much. And Sean, what are we telling Everybody to do?

[Sean Kent]

YouTube.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Yes.

[Sean Kent]

Subscribe, subscribe, subscribe. Watch this.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Fame Under Fire all right, Sean, thank you very much. You can go back to Akin now. Go back to aching.

[Sean Kent]

Thank you for having me. I appreciate you. You guys have a great day and a great week.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Bye, Sean.

[Sean Kent]

Bye guys.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

That was our resident trial attorney Sean Kent joining us from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anoushka Mutanda Doughty. As always. If you've got any questions, send them to us on social media. You can find me at nushkamd on Instagram and TikTok or WhatsApp us at 0330-6781. That's 0330678-TRIPLE14. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing.

[BBC Announcer]

8 August 1963. A gang of thieves hold up a British Royal Mail train on its way from Glasgow to London. More than 2 million pounds was stolen and Ronnie Biggs was the most famous face of the Great Train Robbery.

[Anushka Matandadawati]

Daniel Mays reveals the true story of Ronnie Biggs.

[BBC Announcer]

A train robbery, a prison escape and 36 years on the run.

[Sean Kent]

Gangster presents the story of Ronnie Biggs.

[BBC Announcer]

Listen first on BBC Sounds.

[Safeway/Albertsons Advertiser]

Save on family essentials at Safeway and Albertsons. This week at Safeway and Albertsons enjoy eight piece double breaded famous chicken fried or baked dark meat featuring four legs and four thighs for just $5.99 each. Member price available in the deli and sweet red cherries are $2.97 per pound limit 6 pounds. Member price with digital coupon plus 24 ounce. Selected varieties of fresh cut fruit bowls are $5 each. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways

[Anushka Matandadawati]

to save craving something specific. From global flavors to viral snacks, TikTok has it all. If you can dream it, you can make it right at home, Find your

[Stitch Fix Advertiser]

next favorite dish on TikTok.