Drill music and the limits of free speech

I recently attended a public event organised by Art Not Evidence which campaigns against the criminalisation of drill music and the use of rap lyrics in justice proceedings

Drill music, a genre originating in Chicago and later adapted in the UK, has become a subject of controversy due to its association with violent gang activity. While some argue against criminalizing drill music and the use of rap lyrics in legal proceedings, others believe that such measures are necessary to hold perpetrators accountable. This article explores the complex legal and social implications of drill music in the UK, examining the efforts of activists to protect artistic freedom and the challenges they face. It also highlights the broader implications for freedom of speech and artistic expression in British society.

Drill music, a genre characterized by its dark and menacing lyrics, has been linked to South London's gang culture. In recent years, there have been increasing attempts to use drill lyrics as evidence in criminal cases, leading to concerns about the potential misuse of artistic expression.

This article delves into the efforts of Art Not Evidence, a campaign that aims to challenge the criminalization of drill music and the use of rap lyrics in legal proceedings. The author, a criminologist and art enthusiast, attended an event organized by the campaign with the intention of understanding their perspective and offering support. However, their expectations were subverted as the campaign's approach and arguments proved to be fundamentally at odds with their own.

The event featured a panel of activists and representatives from the affected communities, who engaged in a discussion about the role of drill music in perpetuating violence and the need for both justice reform and the protection of artistic expression. The author's attempt to present an argument for valuing artistic freedom as a good in itself was met with hostility, and they were ultimately branded a racist by the campaigners.

The article goes on to highlight the historical attempts by law enforcement to criminalize fiction, which were later overturned due to changing social mores. It also examines the efforts of the Metropolitan Police to monitor and analyze drill music, an initiative that has drawn criticism from activists.

While Art Not Evidence maintains that the convictions of drill musicians are solely the result of systemic racism, the author argues that many drill musicians are indeed involved in gang violence, a fact that cannot be ignored in the discussion of criminal culpability. They also question the campaign's stance on drill music, given its absence from the art activities promoted by organizations like Art Against Knives.

The article delves into the complex legal debate surrounding the admissibility and reliability of drill music as evidence, emphasizing the nuanced nature of the law and the varying grounds for exempting artistic expression from certain forms of evidentiary scrutiny. It also draws parallels to the recent clamp-down on social media activity by individuals connected to the riots in England, highlighting the government's tendency to rely on the aesthetic feel of speech rather than its content in making legal judgments.

Drill musicians have faced various legal restrictions, including suspended sentences for posting drill music on social media and Criminal Behaviour Orders that require them to submit their music for approval. Lawyers at the Art Not Evidence event highlighted the broad and concerning applications of these Orders, which could potentially lead to DJs being jailed for remixing drill songs.

The author expresses skepticism towards the state's deployment of legal instruments that can criminalize the exercise of rights commonly believed to be universally guaranteed, such as freedom of speech and artistic expression. They also note the British state's selective approach in invoking Criminal Behaviour Orders to prevent specific types of speech-related offenses.

At the Art Not Evidence event, members of the audience critiqued the practice of criminalizing artistic expression by painting it as a violation of human rights. However, this tactic was not well-received by the panel, who maintained that the campaign was a "black" issue that required the establishment of a separate category of black rights.

The author's attempt to highlight the universal principles of free speech and artistic expression was met with further hostility, as a white criminologist's declaration of the event being antiracist prompted the campaigners to state that the opinions and support of "white men" were not welcome. This left the author questioning whether drill music was worth protecting under their own doctrine of free speech.

The article concludes by highlighting the broader limitations faced by campaigns for free speech and artistic expression in British society, including the lack of a shared understanding of the principles that guide and protect these fundamental rights. It also examines the arguments used by supporters of both sides in the Israel-Hamas war, and the ultimately self-serving nature of these campaigns, which often boil down to "I need free expression to suppress the speech of my opponents."