钻探音乐和言论自由的限制

我最近参加了一个由 Art Not Evidence 组织的公共活动，该活动反对将练习音乐定为犯罪以及在司法程序中使用说唱歌词

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.

钻探音乐是一种起源于芝加哥、后来在英国改编的音乐流派，由于与暴力帮派活动的联系而成为争议的话题。虽然一些人反对将钻探音乐和在法律诉讼中使用说唱歌词定为犯罪，但另一些人则认为这些措施对于追究肇事者的责任是必要的。本文探讨了英国 Drill Music 复杂的法律和社会影响，审视了活动人士保护艺术自由的努力以及他们面临的挑战。它还强调了对英​​国社会言论自由和艺术表达自由的更广泛影响。

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.

钻探音乐是一种以其黑暗而险恶的歌词为特征的音乐流派，与伦敦南部的帮派文化有着密切的联系。近年来，越来越多的人试图在刑事案件中使用练习歌词作为证据，这引发了人们对艺术表现形式潜在滥用的担忧。

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.

本文深入探讨了“艺术而非证据”运动，该运动旨在挑战将练习音乐定为刑事犯罪以及在法律诉讼中使用说唱歌词。作者是一名犯罪学家和艺术爱好者，参加了该运动组织的一次活动，旨在了解他们的观点并提供支持。然而，由于事实证明竞选活动的方法和论点与他们自己的根本不一致，他们的期望被颠覆了。

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.

此次活动由受影响社区的活动人士和代表组成，他们讨论了演习音乐在延续暴力方面的作用以及司法改革和保护艺术表达的必要性。作者试图提出将艺术自由视为一种善的论点，但遭到了敌意，他们最终被活动人士贴上了种族主义者的标签。

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.

文章接着强调了历史上执法部门将小说定为犯罪的尝试，但后来由于社会习俗的变化而被推翻。它还审查了伦敦警察厅监测和分析演习音乐的努力，这一举措引起了活动人士的批评。

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.

虽然“艺术而非证据”坚持认为，电钻音乐家的定罪完全是系统性种族主义的结果​​，但作者认为，许多电钻音乐家确实参与了帮派暴力，这是在刑事罪责讨论中不容忽视的事实。他们还质疑该运动对钻音乐的立场，因为它没有出现在“反刀艺术”等组织推动的艺术活动中。

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.

本文深入探讨了围绕钻乐作为证据的可接受性和可靠性的复杂法律辩论，强调了法律的细微差别以及使艺术表达免受某些形式的证据审查的不同理由。这也与最近英国骚乱相关个人对社交媒体活动的打压类似，突显出政府在做出法律判断时倾向于依赖言论的美感而不是其内容。

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 音乐家面临各种法律限制，包括因在社交媒体上发布 Drill 音乐而被判缓刑，以及要求他们提交音乐以获得批准的犯罪行为令。 Art Not Evidence 活动中的律师强调了这些命令的广泛且令人担忧的应用，这可能会导致 DJ 因混音练习歌曲而被监禁。

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.

作者对国家部署法律文书表示怀疑，这些法律文书可以将行使通常被认为受到普遍保障的权利（例如言论自由和艺术表达自由）定为犯罪。他们还注意到英国政府有选择性地援引犯罪行为令来防止特定类型的言论相关犯罪。

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“艺术不是证据”活动中，观众批评了将艺术表达定为犯罪的做法，将其描绘成侵犯人权的行为。然而，这一策略并没有得到专家组的好评，他们坚持认为该运动是一个“黑人”问题，需要建立一个单独的黑人权利类别。

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.

作者试图强调言论自由和艺术表达的普遍原则，但遭到了进一步的敌意，因为一名白人犯罪学家宣称该活动是反种族主义，促使活动人士表示不欢迎“白人”的意见和支持。这让作者质疑练习音乐是否值得在他们自己的言论自由原则下受到保护。

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."

文章最后强调了英国社会言论自由和艺术表达运动所面临的更广泛的局限性，包括对指导和保护这些基本权利的原则缺乏共识。它还审视了以色列-哈马斯战争双方支持者所使用的论点，以及这些运动的最终自私性质，这些运动往往归结为“我需要言论自由来压制对手的言论”。