I feel like this is one of those moral dilemma things where:

* It's probably really bad that BG is glorifying violence and murder and threatening witnesses

* It would be better if he stopped

* It's completely understandable that his parole should depend on him not doing it

* The court should absolutely overturn this and protect his free speech so he can go on glorifying violence and murder

Free speech, not just for good people!

I’m not convinced this is a free speech violation. He’s on parole - meaning the government has the legal right to put him back in prison basically at any moment. There’s no free speech in a prison (edit: officially yes, in practice, it doesn’t matter much).

Supervised release also comes with all sorts of restrictions, including in some cases: No internet use, no contact with minors, no alcohol, mandatory check-ins, random searches, approved locations only, curfew at night, no leaving the country, no knowing association with other felons. This is hardly novel by comparison.

Need to add in the title that this is a condition of his parole.

> But Morgan said prosecutors’ concerns over Dorsey’s goals of rehabilitation were “legitimate”. So she would have the artist turn his lyrics over to the government prior to putting out or promoting any songs he planned to use them in, and at that point if they are deemed to be “inconsistent with the goals of rehabilitation”, prosecutors could ask to modify Dorsey’s supervised release terms.

> As prosecutors asked, Morgan also reiterated that Dorsey must not work with people previously convicted of felonies unless given permission to do so, among other special conditions. She furthermore ordered him to complete 400 hours of unpaid community service. Seems pretty wild, but apparently laws work a bit different for people on probation/supervised leave from prior (not sure what that means)?

The real story here is what a big win this is for the rehabilitatory justice movement. Personally I think that prison time serves a number of purposes. It's a punishment in the classical sense (make people experience something they don't like, and they will weigh that experience when making decisions that could lead to it again), it stops criminals from committing their crime of choice in the near term (giving the public a break), and it serves as an opportunity to help those who have fallen into a life of crime gain skills and knowledge that can help them get a legal job. That last point feels like it's being misapplied here. Being a rapper, you say a lot of things that you don't mean. It's a mask, a persona. Glorifying gun crime is literally what the public pays you for. They want to hear it. So it seems like someone is a bit confused if they think that banning that content from his songs will help him rehabilitate.

Interestingly this doesn’t see to be a violation of his freedom of speech. The order is simply that he must share it with the government, not that he can’t say it, AFAICT.

But it can affect his supervised release seemingly.

Clear violation of free speech. Where is the ACLU at?