Last week, a federal judge ruled that rapper BG, known for his 1999 hit “Bling Bling,” must provide the government with copies of the lyrics to any new songs as a condition of his supervised release. While prosecutors can often impose broad illegal restrictions on the conduct of released prisoners, critics argue that such restrictions are unconstitutional and constitute prior restraints on speech.
In 2012, BG (real name Christopher Dorsey) was sentenced to 14 years in prison for illegal possession of a firearm and obstruction of justice. Dorsey was released in February after serving 11 years in prison. In May, prosecutors filed a motion accusing Dorsey of violating the terms of his bail by publishing songs “in which he once again glorified murder, drug dealing, and threatened those who cooperate with police.”
“Mr. Dorsey’s conduct directly contradicts the goals of supervised release – rehabilitation and becoming a responsible, law-abiding member of our community,” prosecutors wrote. “No reasonable person could have known Mr. Dorsey’s Watch these new videos and conclude that Mr. Dorsey is taking his recovery seriously.”
Prosecutors asked that Dorsey be barred from “promoting and glorifying future gun violence/murder and obstruction during his songs and concerts.” On Friday, New Orleans federal judge Susie Morgan rejected the request, writing that the condition could be a prior restraint on Dorsey’s speech and unconstitutional.
“There is no question that the Court finds that the conditions attached are not sufficiently clear and specific to serve as a guide to the conduct of the defendants and those entrusted to oversee them,” Morgan wrote. But she nevertheless placed strict limits on Dorsey’s remarks. “To address the legitimate concerns expressed by the government, the court will impose a special condition that the defendant provide the U.S. Probation Office with copies of the lyrics to any song he writes and share those lyrics with the government before producing or promoting such songs.”
While the restriction sounds outrageous, supervised release is a puzzling mess for many former prisoners. “When it was created in 1984, federal supervised release should be used sparingly to monitor offenders who pose public safety concerns or who require additional support before reintegrating into society,” reasonCJ Ciara Mela wrote last month. “Yet it has been used by default … and it has sent many others back to prison for minor rule infractions that may not have warranted such a harsh response.”
Even though supervised release requirements are often onerous, some First Amendment experts argue that Dorsey’s supervised release request still unconstitutionally imposes prior restrictions on speech.
Senior attorney JT Morris said: “Under supervised release conditions, courts often give the government more leeway to restrict speech, but this is not narrowly tailored, and it is not really justified in relation to deterring past criminal behavior or rehabilitation. Relationship. reason. “This order requires the artist to turn over the lyrics to any song he writes. No matter what the content of the song is. It’s too broad.”
