Tort or Crime?
In Chapter 1 of the text you read about the Bailey v. Eminem defamation case where the court
held Eminem’s lyrics were protected by the First Amendment. Read the article and view the
video (the links are listed under Week 1 Additional Learning Resources Required and Week 1
Multimedia Required) to the Pahler v. Slayer case. Respond to the following questions:
Did the Pahler court use the same reasoning as used in Bailey v. Eminem?
Should the court’s decision in Pahler be different because a young girl was
murdered?
Recall the difference between a crime and a tort. Based on these two cases, analyze
and discuss whether artists should be held liable for the actions of their fans.
Class,
Did the Pahler court use the same reasoning as used in Bailey v. Eminem?
I think in the Pahler vs Slayer case the Slayer lawyer used the same viewpoint that Slayer music
lyrics are protected under the First Amendment. “The judge agreed that, based on previous rock-
lyric rulings, Slayer’s music is protected under the 1st Amendment. (Phillips, 2001). However,
the judge did not just close the case but offered Plaintiff the chance to go back and take 60 days
to produce the supporting documentation on how the band was overall responsible.
Should the court’s decision in Pahler be different because a young girl was murdered?
I think the magnitude of the crime is greater than that of Bailey v. Eminem. We are talking
murder vs defamation. However, the band did not coerce the teenagers to commit such an
egregious crime. There comes a point where ownership needs to be upheld and the decision to
murder this young lady was in the hands of Royce Casey, Joseph Fiorella, and Jacob Delashmutt.
Recall the difference between a crime and a tort. Based on these two cases, analyze and
discuss whether artists should be held liable for the actions of their fans.
“A tort is something that occurs when one person’s negligence directly causes property or
personal damage to another individual. A crime is legally defined as any ubiquitous wrongdoing
against society.” (Duboff, 2019). I think this is a grey line in a way. For instance, you had the
Travis Scott concert there were many red flags that had been brought up as a concern and the
artist neglected to correct them and moved forward with the concert that ended up in tragedy.
That in my view had legal recourse that can be taken against the artist. I listen to various artists
(NWA, Too Short, Pink Floyd, Grateful Dead, George Strait, Gary Allen etc.) each has their
views on the lyrics they sing about. However, that is music, and you have your own conscience
and can make your own decisions. I don’t feel you can hold the artist liable for any wrongdoing a
person decides to use their music as a scapegoat for a crime they consciously decide would be ok
to commit.
Jerry
This study source was downloaded by 100000827646477 from CourseHero.com on 04-21-2022 09:33:20 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/138078500/BUS-311-Week-1-Discussion-2docx/
In Chapter 1 of the text you read about the Bailey v. Eminem defamation case where the court
held Eminem’s lyrics were protected by the First Amendment. Read the article and view the
video (the links are listed under Week 1 Additional Learning Resources Required and Week 1
Multimedia Required) to the Pahler v. Slayer case. Respond to the following questions:
Did the Pahler court use the same reasoning as used in Bailey v. Eminem?
Should the court’s decision in Pahler be different because a young girl was
murdered?
Recall the difference between a crime and a tort. Based on these two cases, analyze
and discuss whether artists should be held liable for the actions of their fans.
Class,
Did the Pahler court use the same reasoning as used in Bailey v. Eminem?
I think in the Pahler vs Slayer case the Slayer lawyer used the same viewpoint that Slayer music
lyrics are protected under the First Amendment. “The judge agreed that, based on previous rock-
lyric rulings, Slayer’s music is protected under the 1st Amendment. (Phillips, 2001). However,
the judge did not just close the case but offered Plaintiff the chance to go back and take 60 days
to produce the supporting documentation on how the band was overall responsible.
Should the court’s decision in Pahler be different because a young girl was murdered?
I think the magnitude of the crime is greater than that of Bailey v. Eminem. We are talking
murder vs defamation. However, the band did not coerce the teenagers to commit such an
egregious crime. There comes a point where ownership needs to be upheld and the decision to
murder this young lady was in the hands of Royce Casey, Joseph Fiorella, and Jacob Delashmutt.
Recall the difference between a crime and a tort. Based on these two cases, analyze and
discuss whether artists should be held liable for the actions of their fans.
“A tort is something that occurs when one person’s negligence directly causes property or
personal damage to another individual. A crime is legally defined as any ubiquitous wrongdoing
against society.” (Duboff, 2019). I think this is a grey line in a way. For instance, you had the
Travis Scott concert there were many red flags that had been brought up as a concern and the
artist neglected to correct them and moved forward with the concert that ended up in tragedy.
That in my view had legal recourse that can be taken against the artist. I listen to various artists
(NWA, Too Short, Pink Floyd, Grateful Dead, George Strait, Gary Allen etc.) each has their
views on the lyrics they sing about. However, that is music, and you have your own conscience
and can make your own decisions. I don’t feel you can hold the artist liable for any wrongdoing a
person decides to use their music as a scapegoat for a crime they consciously decide would be ok
to commit.
Jerry
This study source was downloaded by 100000827646477 from CourseHero.com on 04-21-2022 09:33:20 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/138078500/BUS-311-Week-1-Discussion-2docx/
