Yes, this is the same Williams behind the lethally titled track “Body Count” and the same one penning the explicit, brutal and lyrical reality of a former street hustler. For

Yes, this is the same Williams behind the lethally titled track “Body Count” and the same one penning the explicit, brutal and lyrical reality of a former street hustler. For some, that Hollywood extension may deem him an unrighteous proponent of violence. For others, it may turn them off from his hip-hop subject matter. But it does not provide a compass for his legal standing. Justice should be irrespective of Williams’ lyrical expression and financially elite status. I presume those same critics present similar arguments for the legal cases of other Hollywood creatives whose violence-driven creative products are widely supported, consumed and enjoyed by the mass population  as well.

Does this mean Quentin Tarantino’s multi-million dollar Kill Bill film franchise is directly correlated to his prior arrest for stealing a crime novel from a California bookstore? Or how about scenes from Scarface, the film adaptation of everyone’s favorite Cuban drug lord Tony Montana? Do they hold precedent over its creator Oliver Stone's 1999 alcohol and drug charges, all of which he plead guilty to?

Sure, it doesn’t. But you’ll never hear that from the same people who gush over the gory bloodshed of a solid Tarantino film. It won’t spill from the mouths of those adamantly backing America’s first and favorite amendment which guarantees freedom of speech. Somehow, everyone draws the line at the mics of rap music, though. I gladly regret to inform those people that music lyrics, otherwise considered creative expression, are one of the most fundamental arms of the First Amendment. However, they only become relevant in court when stacked upon the moral and legal prosecution of rap artists. And according to the meticulous study and research belonging to liberal arts Professor Erik Nielson of the  University of Richmond, the court's loose discretion allows for such biased relevancy as well.

“Race is without question involved in this,” Nielson said of the court’s use of rap lyrics in a Genius exclusive. “I think rap is often a proxy for a young Black male. When we talk about the demonized and villainized rappers, it’s coded because, for us, rap music is an accurate representation of Black life. So when we talk about rap, we’re really just finding another way to talk about Black and Latino men.”

When asked whether white defendants face this same reality, Nielson’s research-backed remark shows a stark contrast. “It has happened,” he informed. “It’s very rare. I can think of one or two. So there are examples, but it’s almost exclusively young men of color.”

Surprise, surprise — but, not really. Especially not when you take cases of “judicial discretion” into the hands of a judge like Aaron Persky, infamously known for tapping Stanford University rapist Brock Allen Turner on the wrist with a six-month sentence from indictments on five charges in 2016: two for felony sexual assault, two for rape and one for attempted rape.