Blogs and Stories
Does This Kid Deserve 2 Years for Rap Lyrics?
Courtesy of Polk County Jail
When a rap he wrote as a teenager ended up on MySpace years later, Antavio Johnson found the police at his door—and now, he’s been sentenced to two years' hard time for a song lyric.
Soon after Harvard’s Henry Louis Gates was arrested after mouthing off to the police, charges of disorderly conduct against the feisty African-American professor were dropped like a hot potato in a firestorm of racial controversy. But consider the fate another African-American signifier who mouthed off to the police—this one, a hot-headed 20-year-old who, two weeks ago, was handed a two-year prison sentence for some rap lyrics he wrote when he was a teenager.
For all the protection afforded by the First Amendment, the Constitution doesn’t protect dangerous and offensive speech absolutely.
Antavio Johnson wrote “Kill Me a Cop,” a rap song threatening to murder two police officers he said had harassed him. The song announced: “Im'ma kill me a cop one day.” It called out two specific officers—one male, one female—by name, both of the Lakeland, Florida, Police Department, both of whom would be shot with a “Glock” in the “dome” if they ever “get my timing wrong.”
A couple of years later, Lakeland detectives researching gang life on the Internet found Johnson’s song on a MySpace page belonging to an entity called Hood Certified Entertainment. Already in jail for violating probation on a cocaine conviction, the now-20-year-old Johnson was convicted on two counts of a weirdly titled crime he had probably never heard of: “corruption by threat of public servant.”
Section 838.021of the Florida statutes makes it a third-degree felony to harm or threaten to harm public servants, their families, or the people they care about. The statute, which is designed to deter corruption and punish extortion, requires that threats be made "with the intent or purpose" to influence public servants' performance of their official responsibilities. In a 2007 case, a disorderly man was prosecuted under the statute for repeatedly asking to see the badges of undercover officers, but acquitted. In a 2008 case, another disorderly Florida man was prosecuted and acquitted under the statute, this one a DUI arrestee in handcuffs who threatened to slit the arresting officer's throat and beat his "ass" if the officer were to free him. The court concluded that the man's threats lacked the requisite intent to influence the officer. Merely threatening the life of an officer, even to his face, is not enough for conviction.
So did Johnson deserve a two-year sentence for some ill-conceived lyrics he wrote as a teenager? No. It’s outrageous. He is young and caught up in a culture that glorifies both violence and freedom of expression. The art of signifying by rhyme, the rapper’s medium of expression, incorporates the profane and transgressive vocabularies of violence, rebellion, racism, sexism, homophobia, and irreligiosity.
But the people arguing that all words set to song are protected by freedom of speech are wrong. The Florida chapter of the ACLU came out in Johnson’s defense: “We don’t punish for bad thoughts in America.” An op-ed in the Palm Beach Post warned: “Thought police, anyone?…Criminalizing Johnson's early, crude attempts at expression seems borderline unconstitutional and counterproductive.”
But these weren’t just “thoughts,” they were statements, and American law takes verbal injury seriously. For all the protection afforded by the First Amendment, the Constitution doesn’t protect dangerous and offensive speech absolutely. There is no unqualified freedom of speech to lie about a person—that constitutes “defamation.” There is no unqualified freedom of speech to publish private facts about people who aren’t newsworthy—that would be “invasion of privacy.” And there is no unqualified freedom of speech to make threats to do a person bodily harm—that amounts to what the common law calls “assault.”
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Does an 11-Year-Old Deserve Life in Prison?
Anita L. Allen is the Henry R. Silverman professor of law and professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. She writes about everyday ethics, health, and the right to privacy for scholarly journals and the popular press.
How I Got Through Airport Security with No I.D.
Anita L. Allen is the Henry R. Silverman professor of law and professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. She writes about everyday ethics, health, and the right to privacy for scholarly journals and the popular press.
The Global Infertility Crisis
Anita L. Allen is the Henry R. Silverman professor of law and professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. She writes about everyday ethics, health, and the right to privacy for scholarly journals and the popular press.
This is stupid, FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
The police probably never went to collage.
i guess you never went to 'college' either haha
but he did make some collages
he he he. priceless
Anita, it is unbelievable! So is the fact Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are still on the air.
Perfectly appropriate statement. Talk about hate mongering. I guess if this kid, "caught up in a culture that glorifies both violence and freedom of expression", what a crock of crap BTW, can serve time for making verbal threats in a song then Limbaugh and his ilk can do some time as well. Add Palin to the lot too. The Rights vitriol is much more influential than some cocaine involved idiot who got pissed off because he got harassed. And the element of racism rather evident here still speaks of this country's inability to live up to "Freedom and justice for all."
Yeah, ban them like Hugo Chavez. Since they won't ban them here you could move down there. :)
This story is hardly unique in America...
It would be nice if people..........ummmm.....did the right thing without having to be threatened. Sorry, Lakeland, Florida. But you cant harass someone and then put him in jail for exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech.
You just don't get it ! - They did do it and continue to do it
this is pretty unbelievable
I don't know how unbelievable this is. It seems like too harsh of a punishment but threatening to kill police officers BY NAME should have sever punishment. Two years is too much and if he did write the lyrics as a youth they should be considered and tried with that in mind, as though he were a minor that is. but still, these words deserve punishment.
"These words deserve punishment--" well, maybe Johnson could spend a Saturday morning picking up roadside trash.
But to keep him in jail for two years at taxpayer expense just because some cops got their feelings hurt is ridiculous.
The story says that Johnson's song was only found by police as they were researching gangs. So it doesn't sound like the song was being blasted from every stereo in Lakeland.
I am in complete agreement that two years is too long, but this is more than just getting their feelings hurt, these people put their life on the line and they were called out by name to be killed, its pretty serious, you'd have to admit.
Interesting concept: think about what this numbskull is saying "...these words deserve punishment..." Tell me, what punishment did those words writing the declaration of independence deserve for their words?
I am a little confused by your question but I think you are asking what punishment the founding fathers deserved. I don't think they were in the wrong. I do believe that it is wrong to call out police officers by name and threaten to kill them.
This is a tough one. There are things that one does and there things which one should never do. No one should disrespect authority, especially a police officer. And unlike you, I do feel that those in authority should be afforded more protection as they are in such a precarious position at times. However, I do not believe that police officers should be above the law. When what comes out of person's mouth goes against civility and proper, there has to be penalties paid. America is not a raceless society. No country is. It is totally unfair that the down trodden are more penalized by rules and regulations than others. I guess someone figured out that if those who are powerless are not held unduly and more severely accountable for their misdeeds be they verbal or physical, society would come apart. "Things fall apart" to a much greater extent when people are oppressed be they white, black or otherwise. America is a violent country and glorifies violence, but that parents, preists, teachers and others should be there to instill the very best in children. People simply must rise above all that terrible noise out there. That "kid" as you put it should not have gotten two years, but kids who threaten police officers need to be punished. If that "kid" were truly a good kid, he never would have verbally abused that police officer. Why do people always holler their rights to freedom of speech are being trampled on whenever they go out on a limb and do something absolutely outrageous. Ultimatley, when we teach our kids better, they know better. And when they step outside the law, they should be held accontable. And no one black or white, big or small should be exempted. What a pity that the guy happens to be black and economically disadvantaged. As for me, colour nothwithstanding, once you violate the law, and you insult a police officer or anyone else for that matter in authority, you should pay.
"No one should disrespect authority."
F^ck that. People in positions of authority have been given more power, and thus more responsibility, than the average person. Thus I hold them to a higher standard of behavior than ordinary people. If they betray that trust, they deserve no-one's respect. Respect must be earned, even more so by those who are entrusted with power and authority.
How many Americans think like sheep these days? Lots, apparently.
I guess we don't have many law enforcement officials on this site. If you threaten the police with physical violence, you'd better be prepared to run fast or go to jail. It's called crimminal intent and, considering this con's circumstances, was certainly deemed a likely action by the State. We as a society have allowed the police to become moving targets with this type of "free speech" and, as evidenced by the alarming number of high speed pursuits and officer involved shootings, too many people do not respect the authority of cops.
Ms. Allen, this "white" neighbor of yours hasn't told his side of the story and perhaps your son does need to be "fucked up" for whatever the man believes is being done to his sons by your misfit. We won't know for sure, will we? If you want to discuss race, can we include both incarceration rates and standardized test scores?
I was agreeing with you until you brought discussing race that include incarceration rates and standardize test scores, but Danny Boy lets not stop there, lets bring up White privlege along with legacy and also discuss the stats on how many White offenders are caught with illegal drugs and whose sentences are substantially lower than their Black or Hispanic counter parts. Maybe now that will begin to change now that we have a wise Latina on our nations highest court. As a civil service organization (which the police are) they have become corrupt and even belligerant in their "I am above the law" mentality. See Danny Boy, you would have more support if you gave a even handed response in your comment, but like most small minded people everything is good versus evil and Black versus White, with White always being right. Nice try old Boy!
I was following along in his first paragraph, too. Then he went for what looks like racial superiority and flushed his argument right down the drain.
Easy with that "Boy" stuff, I happen to be black; unfortunately not the type of black person you're interested in.
Danny Boy, So am I! Unfortunately for you, I am an educated one. In the future when making an argument use all the facts not just some one sided version. Aren't you tired of being the Uncle Tom, if you are Black as you say?
DanKenton: Ms. Allen's 'white' neighbor was CONVICTED of a crime, suggesting that the white neighbor had an opportunity to tell his side of the story and, apparently, a judge or jury chose to believe Ms. Allen's son's version of the verbal assault. Come on. . . an adult threatening to 'fuck up' a child? In a system of law, the white neighbor had an opportunity to explain why he, an adult, verbally assaulted a child . . but that is not good enough for you, DanKenton?
DanKenton: You contradict all your own statements in just two paragraphs. That's quite an achievement. Empty and ugly at the same time. It almost comes across like thought, but the effect is ruined by the ass-kissing pandering to Authority.
Take THAT, Ms. Allen! You and your misfit son.
I don't know where you went to law school. Articulating an intent without an affirmative act can not be criminal.
Dan Kenton,
The whole issue here is about civility. It is healthy to disagree with a person, however, once a person starts insulting others, that person has crossed the line. Saying that someone's son needs to be "fucked up" as it were is simply out of line. And not only that, calling someone's child a "misfit" does not sound like your aim is to engage in fruitful discussion. No one disagrees with you Dan that minorities are in prisons in great numbers. The larger issue is how can we turn those numbers around in fact that is our true interest. Whether a person does well or not on a culturally biased intelligence test does not mean that the person does not matter. You probably would fail hands down on an emotional intelligence test. Let's be civil and not throw mud around. The issue at hand should be did the guy get more than he deserved. Yes, he is a person of colour, but what does it really matter. As you do, I agree, there has got to be greater respect of the law.
I don't think I would have used the word "kid" to describe the young man who challenged authority. In my frame of reference the term "kid" denotes innocence and the proverbial expression, boys will be boys. The man who threatened the police is anything but innocent. It is clear that one thing that this guy was not taught was the ABC's of dealing with a police officer. In threatening that police officer, he got more than he deserved. No doubt the guy will not reform his ways behind bars. The first thing that he is likely to do is get into more serious trouble when he is released. He will have two years to play back over and over, the only good cop is a dead cop. So, the system will have failed him and countless others.
No adult should be alowed to threaten a 12 year old kid no mater how "justified" they might be. That's the guy who ought to be in jail for 2 years right now. At least the cops signed up for the gig...
I'd rather debate the effectiveness of the proposed consequence. I recall all the crazy right-wing "baby killer" comments about George Tiller, who actually was shot to death. Would a stern talking-to and $400 have kept some of those folks quiet?
I'm not convinced a relatively minor fine and scolding would do much to deter their ill-conceived speech.
One reason this is confusing to me is any citizen that has a threat of any kind of violence verbally said to them you hear nothing can be done about it until something really does happen? What is different in this situation. (Not that I condone what this young man wrote.It is chilling.)
This actually isn't the case. If someone verbally threatens you with with bodily injury in a credible fashion then they are guilty of civil assault. If they point a gun at you and threaten to shoot you then that is criminal assault. Of course that presupposes that you could first convince the police, then a prosecutor and ulimately a judge and jury that the threat was made and that it was credible based on the proven circumstances.
I wonder if Johnson's threat to the police officers was made in a "credible fashion." Writing, performing, and recording a song naming the intended victims and even stating the type of weapon to be used, all prior to the intended offense, just seems like the dumbest, most poorly executed assasination plot ever.
WestVillager is right about the $400 fine and a scolding.
He's lucky two years was the maximum they could throw at him.
Sounds like he threatened to kill 2 police officers and specifically named them. That is a punishable offence for sure. Instead of defending this piece of crap and his so-called art, why don't you get him to try to be a constructive member of the community instead of writing songs about murdering police. I don't want to see this kid in jail, but he is the problem, not the law. Finally - odds are 7/10 that this kid did not have a father at home growing up, this is the root of the black communities problems, and it's their responsibility, not anyone elses.
Two years seems to be a bit long to go back. If he hasn't acted upon these threats by then, they seem more a foolish rant than a real threat.
The other problem is that those who inflamed Dr. Tiller's killer are therefore guilty. If Olbermann's staff sees TDB, this should set them off to resurrect Olbermann's criticism of O'Reilly's calling "Tiller the baby killer." Hate speech is not free speech.
This user is no longer registered.
Wow! I gues it was the O'Reilly-Olbermann tiff that set this off.
There seems to be a disconnect here:
1. A YouTube video versus a nationally televised and (supposedly) widely watched TV commentator can use hate speech to his rabid audience - thereby justifying one of them to complete a murder.
2. A video that sat unnoticed for two years that incited no violence,
Will the ACLU defend him?
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
Aren't cops supposed to be extra strong and tough and willing to shoulder some of the heaviest burdens? Why are they entitled to more protection for their feelings and sensibilities than an ordinary person, or a child?
Maybe he will get a lot of time off for good behavior.
what is his police record? why were the police harassing him? assault is not protected speech but 2 years? thats extreme hecklers veto.
I was a teacher in an inner city school. There were a few times (like maybe when I took someone's walkman, it was that era) when I was threatened. Or was I? Sometimes teens say, "I'm gonna kill you," as an expression of anger. If it was a real threat I'd do something about it other than to tell the kid that it's stupid to express anger that way. Now, rap is full of boasts not to be taken seriously as well as threats. Occasionally, they are real, but as Prof. Allen points out, this doesn't seem to be one of them.
I don't disagree entirely, but this man is no alter boy. Do we wait until his next cocaine charged episode when he's cornered and decides to start shooting cops / bystanders / whoever? He shown intent, now he just needs a good reason....
Of course this thug should go to jail for threatening the life of a cop! People need to take responsibility for their actions. If you threaten a cop, there will be consequences. To think otherwise is simply naive.
If everyone is jailed for what they say in anger, then the whole country would need jailing.
The constitution protects us from being prosecuted out of fear of what we might do. That is one reason our founding fathers created our protections, to guard against tyranny.
All we've created is more anger in the community over this overly punitive sentence. Personal responsibility cannot occur in a vacuum without justice.
This case is a medium for producing more youth who have utter contempt for the system. Punish in proportion to the crime.
Very well said......
If Antavio Johnson gets two years, what should Bill O'Reilly get for his diatribe against Dr. Tiller?
It is reported that since 2005, Bill O'Reilly's has waged jihad against Dr. George Tiller, dedicating 29 segments of his show to demonizing and dehumanizing Dr. Tiller, who he repeatedly calls, "Tiller the baby killer."
Abortion is legal in America and I believe that Bill O'Reilly should be charged as an accomplice in the murder of Dr. Tiller.
Fox News guest Ralph Peterson suggest that Taliban should kill a U.S. soldier who went missing in Afghanistan on June 30 if he deserted.
Glenn Beck in a very obnoxious depiction of his giving Speaker Pelosi a glass of wine, stated that he had poisoned it.
Neil Chenoweth writes in his book, RUPERT MURDOCH: THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE WORLD'S GREATEST MEDIA WIZARD, page 44, how Murdoch installed a bust of Lenin on his mantelpiece at Oxford and referred to Lenin as "The Great Thinker."
Hannity is obsessed with hatred for President Obama and his vulgar display is un-American! After the U.S.A. won the war with Mexico, many Irish Catholics who fought for Mexico were hanged! After Catholics conspired to kill Abraham Lincoln, they were hanged! When Timothy McVeigh an Irish Catholic, bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, he was put to death. Hannity should be hopeful that nothing happens to Barack Obama!
Stop this madness before another person becomes a victim like Doctor Tiller.
O'Reilly should receive a humanitarian award. This tiller character went beyond basic abortion laws by killing babies that were viable, on demand because they were mere nuisances to the stupid mother's....
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.