Should This Hip-Hop D.J. Be Arrested? I'm Doubtful

Great Debates
1

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/nyregion/12cnd-dj.html?hp&ex=1147492800&en=0014b94690943cb8&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The guy’s clearly being an ass. And hip-hop rivalries, while full of empty boasting, also do have a non-trivial track record of leading to actual violence.

But . . . “endangering the welfare of a child?” Really? By a bunch of empty braggadocio? I mean, threatening to “do an R. Kelly” on someone’s four year old daughter is pretty stupid and sick, but I don’t think it was meant as anything more than OTT bluster, or that he in fact intended to do anything to the kid.

Again, he’s an ass. But geez, the First Amendment and all that – is asking where the kid goes to school the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater? I guess it could be, but this one caught me by surprise (of course, I think the guy should lose his job for this, but jail time?). Who knows, maybe some rabid listener would decided to go after D.J. Envy’s family. I guess it could happen.

Oh, by the way, the reference to a “hate crime” (a concept with which I’m not at all comfortable) stems from (I don’t think it’s in this article, but other pieces noted this) the fact that Torain apparently slagged Envy’s wife, who is part Asian, in crude ethnic terms, and City Council Member John Liu got riled up, so there is also a racial-politics angle to the story.

2

Well, he did offer money to anyone who could tell him where the kid went to school. I think when you show such an egregious lack of judgment, you can expect to be arrested. I don’t think he would have really done anything to the girl, but it sets a bad precedent if people can makes vague threats against people without being held accountable. Especially when you consider this guy’s history.

3

Threats is threats, regardless of intention, and this seems as clear-cut a case of making terroristic threats as there can be. The fool did it on the air, for cryin’ out loud. Arrest seems perfectly within bounds for the nature of his behavior. It remains to be seen how far the case goes in court, but I’m guessing that $500 offer will make his defense a bit more difficult.

4

[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
Threats is threats, regardless of intention, and this seems as clear-cut a case of making terroristic threats as there can be. The fool did it on the air, for cryin’ out loud. Arrest seems perfectly within bounds for the nature of his behavior. It remains to be seen how far the case goes in court, but I’m guessing that $500 offer will make his defense a bit more difficult.
[/QUOTE]

Well, making terroristic threats was the first thing I thought of, too, but that’s not what he seems to have been charged with. He’s charged with actually endangering a child’s welfare. I am not sure which is the more serious/higher penalty charge.

Even as to making terroristic threats, there is some plausibility threshold. If I threaten to destroy Angola with my Huerta Death Ray, I don’t think I’m going down.

5

The version of this story that I read in the Times was a little longer. If he’d left out the bit about paying people to tell him where the school was, then I’d be sure this was excessive. The fact that he said something so stupid makes me wonder if he really did cross the line.

As a side note, Star sounds like a complete nutjob. The article I read went into more detail about how he’s using this arrest to promote himself and his ‘personal philosophy,’ a Rand-influenced thing he calls “objective hate.”

6

Remember, he is an on-air personality. On-air personalities tend to get followers. What this freak said could well have gotten the kid followed or hurt by someone seeking to curry his favor.

7

If someone on the radio was asking for information on where my daughter went to school, I think I’d be pretty freaked out, not to mention pissed off. I imagine that if the kid herself were to hear something like that it could scare the living shit out of her, regardless of how serious the guy really was.

I don’t thing an Endangering charge is unreasonable considering that he was actually asking people to participate in compromising a child’s privacy and safety/ Who knows what kind of nutjobs could have been listening.

Huert88, I don’t know if you have kids, but if you do, just try to imagine how you would feel if someone was talking about snatching your kid from school over the radio and asking for help. If you don’t have kids, imagine your spouse, your mother, whatever. Don’t you think you’d be a little unsettled by it, if not insanely pissed off?

8

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
If someone on the radio was asking for information on where my daughter went to school, I think I’d be pretty freaked out, not to mention pissed off. I imagine that if the kid herself were to hear something like that it could scare the living shit out of her, regardless of how serious the guy really was.

I don’t thing an Endangering charge is unreasonable considering that he was actually asking people to participate in compromising a child’s privacy and safety/ Who knows what kind of nutjobs could have been listening.

Huert88, I don’t know if you have kids, but if you do, just try to imagine how you would feel if someone was talking about snatching your kid from school over the radio and asking for help. If you don’t have kids, imagine your spouse, your mother, whatever. Don’t you think you’d be a little unsettled by it, if not insanely pissed off?
[/QUOTE]

All of what you are saying is true. However, absent some sort of anti-stalking or privacy law, I do not think that knowing or inquiring as to the location of a kid’s school is, in itself, illegal or inherently dangerous (heck, we all knew where the Presidential daughters went to school).

I don’t advocate or support Torain’s jackass move in any way and of course if it were my kid, I’d be incredibly P.O.'d and freaked out.

My understanding, though, is that limitations on free speech are pretty strictly construed. (In fact, the key case introducing the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” concept, Schenk v. United States, was later kind of repudiated – and just this past week, the convictions of various people accused of sedition under WWI-era laws like those disputed in Schenk were expunged). IIRC, the operative law today remains Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), holding that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. I’m still up in the air on that here (again on the assumption that simply ascertaining where she attended school, assuming any of Torain’s groupies did that, is not in itself lawless), though there are arguments on both sides in this case.

Obviously, “what about the children?” cuts both ways and can often become the thin end of the wedge for any number of seemingly-wholesome governmental actions that may have less-desirable further ramifications down the line.

9

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
All of what you are saying is true. However, absent some sort of anti-stalking or privacy law, I do not think that knowing or inquiring as to the location of a kid’s school is, in itself, illegal or inherently dangerous (heck, we all knew where the Presidential daughters went to school).

[/QUOTE]

I have to say that while what he did may not necessarily be illegal, it is decidedly dangerous. The station that formerly employed Torain is broadcast across the New York City metropolitan area, which covers three states. All you need is one idiot listener who admires this guy to go off and do something stupid and there would be a serious problem at hand. The DJ should have been more responsible and he should be held accountable for what he said. Talking trash to another DJ is one thing and it is not a big deal to make disparaging remarks about their family. At best it is an offense that should only be punished with a fine, if at all. In his case, he crossed a very serious line in requesting assistance from listeners to help him track down a child.

10

Indeed. It’s the part where he requested help from listeners that crosses the line.

11

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Indeed. It’s the part where he requested help from listeners that crosses the line.
[/QUOTE]
I’m agreed on this as well. Without this, he can play it off as on air bluster. Offering $500 for a listener to tell him where this kid goes to school is jumping over the line on a rocket powered pogo stick. The reward also offers a dangerous amount of encouragement to any crazies out there amongst his fan base.

The worst part is that this is just a temporary hiccup in this idiots career. If he does any jail time, he’ll likely get hired as soon as he gets out. Name recognition value and all.

12

He should be arrested. He should be charged under the full weight of the law. And he should be imprisoned.

This behavior is not to be taken lightly.

13

Arrested, or beaten by eight dudes swinging double layered tube socks stuffed with quarter rolls.

14

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
He should be arrested. He should be charged under the full weight of the law. And he should be imprisoned.

This behavior is not to be taken lightly.
[/QUOTE]

But especially when constitutional issues are at stake, it’s important to note that nasty behavior is not always illegal behavior. The question here is precisely whether the “full weight of the law” proscribes this particular (very nasty and stupid) conduct. I don’t say it doesn’t. I’m just wondering how the constitutional issues will shake out.

15

Making specific threats against specific people is not constitutionally protected speech, IIRC. If he wants to argue that he was just kidding, that it was part of some hip-hop bluster no one should take seriously, he can bring that up in his defense at trial. It shouldn’t prevent him from being charged.

16

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
And hip-hop rivalries, while full of empty boasting, also do have a non-trivial track record of leading to actual violence.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not a hip-hop rivalry. The fact that the two DJs involved happen to play rap/r&b music means nothing. The news outlets reporting this are using “hip-hop” as a code word for “dangerous blacks”. It’s kinda inflammatory, and it has nothing to do with the case. I’m not accusing you of anything, I just think it’s something that should be noted.

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
But . . . “endangering the welfare of a child?” Really? By a bunch of empty braggadocio? I mean, threatening to “do an R. Kelly” on someone’s four year old daughter is pretty stupid and sick, but I don’t think it was meant as anything more than OTT bluster, or that he in fact intended to do anything to the kid.
[/QUOTE]

I think the fact that he is a really popular DJ who has a lot of influence makes it very possible that the child was in real danger when he made it known that he wanted something bad to happen to her, and offered money for information about her.

17

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
It’s not a hip-hop rivalry. The fact that the two DJs involved happen to play rap/r&b music means nothing. The news outlets reporting this are using “hip-hop” as a code word for “dangerous blacks”. It’s kinda inflammatory, and it has nothing to do with the case. I’m not accusing you of anything, I just think it’s something that should be noted.
[/QUOTE]

Well, in New York at least, recently, at least one of the hip hop stations/studios involved here has (in itself) become a physical locus and focal point for violence in a way that the classic rock and smooth jazz stations haven’t.

Hip hop has had more shootings than say Tori Amos-type music or alt-rock. Not because of “dangerous blacks” but because of “braggartry ridden machismo subject matter” in some sub-genres.

BTW, my initial suggestion was that this guy may have been a bit unfairly tarred as dangerous for what I think were empty, stupid, mean-spirited war-of-words gibes. I’m still on the fence as to “child endangerment.” And “terroristic threats” (I don’t even know if N.Y. has a statute to that end) are made not so infrequently in similarly testosterone-laced environments, and prosecutors generally show discretion in not prosecuting linebackers for threatening in the press to “anihilate” or “destroy” the opposing running back.

As I think on this, I suspect the documented history of violence at the Hot 97 building may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back for Torain – the prosecutors probably bought the argument that the stations were becoming focal points for violence.

18

Was the man at least fired from his job? I can’t imagine a radio station keeping an idiot like that on the air!

19

[QUOTE=gytalf2000]
Was the man at least fired from his job? I can’t imagine a radio station keeping an idiot like that on the air!
[/QUOTE]

Oh yes. And, I think, quite appropriately:

20

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
Well, in New York at least, recently, at least one of the hip hop stations/studios involved here has (in itself) become a physical locus and focal point for violence in a way that the classic rock and smooth jazz stations haven’t.

Hip hop has had more shootings than say Tori Amos-type music or alt-rock. Not because of “dangerous blacks” but because of “braggartry ridden machismo subject matter” in some sub-genres.
[/QUOTE]

I grew up in NJ, and am well aware of Hot 97’s reputation and the things that have have happened there. But, the shooting that happened had little to do with the radio station/hip-hop music. Also, none of the violence involving rappers has spilled over to on-air DJs, so the kind of music the guy plays is irrelevant. Also, the DJ in question (Star) doesn’t even particularly like rap music, and often plays rock music on his show. He is not part of the “hip-hop generation”.