"According to his legal team's 60-page document, Kendrick's lyrics state as an "unambiguous matter of fact" that Drake is a "certified pedophile," and Universal "relentlessly" promoted the song, causing Drake significant harm. "The court effectively created an unprecedented and overbroad categorical rule that statements in rap diss tracks can never constitute statements of fact," his attorney writes. UMG's response to the brief is due March 27."
"Imagine doing all of this legal work to get a ruling that's something like "Yeah, it probably is a little broad to suggest that rap lyrics can never be used in court. That said, you still weren't defamed and that video of you openly lusting over and kissing a girl you knew was 17 on stage when you were 24 is still cringe as hell.""
Drake seeks to reopen a court decision after being labeled a "certified pedophile" in Kendrick Lamar's lyrics, arguing that the ruling prevents rap lyrics from ever being used in court. His legal team filed a 60-page brief asserting that Kendrick's words were presented as factual and that Universal Music Group promoted the song, causing harm. The brief contends the lower court created an overbroad categorical rule shielding diss-track statements from being treated as statements of fact. UMG's response to the brief is due March 27. Observers note previous public incidents and judicial language like "nonactionable opinion," indicating that courts may still distinguish expressive exaggeration from verifiable facts.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]