鑽探音樂和言論自由的限制

我最近參加了一個由 Art Not Evidence 組織的公共活動，該活動反對將練習音樂定為犯罪以及在司法程序中使用說唱歌詞

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.

鑽探音樂是一種起源於芝加哥、後來在英國改編的音樂流派，由於與暴力幫派活動的聯繫而成為爭議的話題。雖然有些人反對將鑽探音樂和在法律訴訟中使用饒舌歌詞定為犯罪，但有些人則認為這些措施對於追究肇事者的責任是必要的。本文探討了英國 Drill Music 複雜的法律和社會影響，審視了活動人士保護藝術自由的努力以及他們面臨的挑戰。它還強調了對英國社會言論自由和藝術表達自由的更廣泛影響。

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.

鑽探音樂是一種以其黑暗而險惡的歌詞為特徵的音樂流派，與倫敦南部的幫派文化有著密切的聯繫。近年來，越來越多的人試圖在刑事案件中使用練習歌詞作為證據，這引發了人們對藝術表現形式潛在濫用的擔憂。

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.

本文深入探討了「藝術而非證據」運動，該運動旨在挑戰將練習音樂定為刑事犯罪以及在法律訴訟中使用饒舌歌詞。作者是犯罪學家和藝術愛好者，參加了運動組織的活動，旨在了解他們的觀點並提供支持。然而，由於事實證明競選活動的方法和論點與他們自己的根本不一致，他們的期望被顛覆了。

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.

這項活動由受影響社區的活動人士和代表組成，他們討論了演習音樂在延續暴力方面的作用以及司法改革和保護藝術表達的必要性。作者試圖提出將藝術自由視為一種善的論點，但遭到了敵意，他們最終被活動人士貼上了種族主義者的標籤。

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.

文章接著強調了歷史上執法部門將小說定為犯罪的嘗試，但後來由於社會習俗的變化而被推翻。它還審查了倫敦警察廳監測和分析演習音樂的努力，這項舉措引起了活動人士的批評。

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.

雖然「藝術而非證據」堅持認為，電鑽音樂家的定罪完全是系統性種族主義的結果，但作者認為，許多電鑽音樂家確實參與了幫派暴力，這是在刑事罪責討論中不容忽視的事實。他們也質疑該運動對鑽音樂的立場，因為它沒有出現在「反刀藝術」等組織推動的藝術活動中。

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.

本文深入探討了圍繞鑽樂作為證據的可接受性和可靠性的複雜法律辯論，強調了法律的細微差別以及使藝術表達免受某些形式的證據審查的不同理由。這也與最近英國騷亂相關個人對社群媒體活動的打壓類似，突顯出政府在做出法律判斷時傾向於依賴言論的美感而不是其內容。

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.

Drill 音樂家面臨各種法律限制，包括因在社群媒體上發布 Drill 音樂而被判緩刑，以及要求他們提交音樂以獲得批准的犯罪行為命令。 Art Not Evidence 活動中的律師強調了這些命令的廣泛且令人擔憂的應用，這可能會導致 DJ 因混音練習歌曲而被監禁。

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.

作者對國家部署法律文件表示懷疑，這些法律文件可以將行使通常被認為受到普遍保障的權利（例如言論自由和藝術表達自由）定為犯罪。他們也注意到英國政府有選擇性地援引犯罪行為令來防止特定類型的言論相關犯罪。

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.

在「藝術不是證據」活動中，觀眾批評了將藝術表達定為犯罪的做法，將其描繪成侵犯人權的行為。然而，這項策略並沒有得到專家小組的好評，他們堅持認為該運動是一個「黑人」問題，需要建立一個單獨的黑人權利類別。

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.

作者試圖強調言論自由和藝術表達的普遍原則，但遭到了進一步的敵意，因為一名白人犯罪學家宣稱該活動是反種族主義，促使活動人士表示不歡迎「白人」的意見和支持。這讓作者質疑練習音樂是否值得在自己的言論自由原則下受到保護。

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."

文章最後強調了英國社會言論自由和藝術表達運動所面臨的更廣泛的局限性，包括對指導和保護這些基本權利的原則缺乏共識。它也審視了以色列-哈馬斯戰爭雙方支持者所使用的論點，以及這些運動的最終自私性質，這些運動往往歸結為「我需要言論自由來壓制對手的言論」。