Yeah, this is two things: Not going to go anywhere because First Amendment, satire, etc. as if it went through thousands of songs would be un-releasable because they might be taken personally by...
Yeah, this is two things:
Not going to go anywhere because First Amendment, satire, etc. as if it went through thousands of songs would be un-releasable because they might be taken personally by someone.
To put forth a hip-hop/rap phrase: The most punk ass bitch move I think I've ever seen for someone that claims to be hard/tough.
I've only been following this whole saga very casually, but it's hard to imagine a better way to admit losing a rap beef than suing the other guy for defamation.
I've only been following this whole saga very casually, but it's hard to imagine a better way to admit losing a rap beef than suing the other guy for defamation.
He will sue anyone who calls him a punk-ass bitch. Unless it's Kendrick, because he totally feels bad for him after absolutely winning the beef in every single way you could possibly imagine. To...
He will sue anyone who calls him a punk-ass bitch. Unless it's Kendrick, because he totally feels bad for him after absolutely winning the beef in every single way you could possibly imagine.
To be fair to Drake, there does seem to be a difference between normal smack talk and calling someone a "certified pedophile."
I just think it's hilarious that he's not actually suing Kendrick. First it was Spotify and UMG for the promotion of the music now it's UMG defaming but not Kendrick. < Jennifer Lawrence okay.gif >
I just think it's hilarious that he's not actually suing Kendrick. First it was Spotify and UMG for the promotion of the music now it's UMG defaming but not Kendrick.
< Jennifer Lawrence okay.gif >
The actual filing is one of the most fun reads of a legal filing in quite some time. We get things like: Rap lyrics hilariously interpreted in formal language: Blatant misinterpretations: Obvious...
The actual filing is one of the most fun reads of a legal filing in quite some time.
We get things like:
Rap lyrics hilariously interpreted in formal language:
In a play on the dual meaning of minor—a person under the age of 18 and a musical scale—the Recording says that Drake is “Tryna strike a chord and it’s probably A-Minor.”
Blatant misinterpretations:
Furthering the Recording’s refrain that Drake is “not like us,” the Recording alludes to Drake’s Jewish heritage, saying that Drake is “not a colleague” but “a fuckin’ colonizer.”
Obvious factual errors:
Later, the Recording threatens that if Drake comes to Oakland, where Lamar grew up, he will not make it out alive: “I think that Oakland show gon’ be your last stop.”
What I can only describe as "crying to mommy":
The Recording also makes a vulgar attack on Drake’s brand OVO: “What OVO for? The ‘Other Vaginal Option’? Pussy” and “Let me hear you say, ‘OV-hoe’ (OV-hoe), Say, ‘OV-hoe’ (OV-hoe).”
Really fun statements of defense:
Drake has never engaged in any acts that would require he be “placed on neighborhood watch.”
If this doesn't belong in ~music, please move to wherever appropriate!
Rap superstar Drake is suing Universal Music Group (UMG) for defamation and harassment, over its release of the Kendrick Lamar diss track Not Like Us last year.
The song, which formed part of a furious back and forth between the two stars, accused Drake and his entourage of being "certified paedophiles" who should "be registered and placed on neighbourhood watch".
If this doesn't belong in ~music, please move to wherever appropriate!
With Kendrick's level of talent, he could just write entirely new lyrics all about how Drake is "Not Like Us" because he sues over rap beefs and still have an entire stadium full of people dancing...
With Kendrick's level of talent, he could just write entirely new lyrics all about how Drake is "Not Like Us" because he sues over rap beefs and still have an entire stadium full of people dancing along to it. He regularly changes up his lyrics when he performs live.
Is Drake not seeing the worst case scenario here? Given that Someone calls you a pedophile You sue for defamation You lose the defamation suit I think it would be reasonable for a distant observer...
Is Drake not seeing the worst case scenario here? Given that
Someone calls you a pedophile
You sue for defamation
You lose the defamation suit
I think it would be reasonable for a distant observer to conclude from Drake is in fact a pedophile.
Obviously that’s invalid logic but my gut says it wouldn’t be an uncommon conclusion.
Weird, when I share that link, the title and description say the case was withdrawn. But the article headline and info imply the opposite. I suppose BBC's meta description info for the page is screwy
Weird, when I share that link, the title and description say the case was withdrawn.
But the article headline and info imply the opposite.
I suppose BBC's meta description info for the page is screwy
The first piece of news today was that the payola petition was dropped. The second piece of news is that the defamation petition has gone to a lawsuit. It seems they tried to resolve this within...
The first piece of news today was that the payola petition was dropped. The second piece of news is that the defamation petition has gone to a lawsuit. It seems they tried to resolve this within the same article and ended up with conflicting headlines that are actually about two different filings.
Huh, I just noticed the page title. This got me curious. According to the Wayback Machine, this was indeed was an updated article from earlier today. Here's the original. BBC just didn't say they...
Huh, I just noticed the page title. This got me curious. According to the Wayback Machine, this was indeed was an updated article from earlier today. Here's the original. BBC just didn't say they updated it. Or that they overwrote it completely, rather.
Yeah, this is two things:
I've only been following this whole saga very casually, but it's hard to imagine a better way to admit losing a rap beef than suing the other guy for defamation.
Hey he's suing everyone but Kendrick Lamar. So he's definitely not a punk ass bitch and he'd like everyone to stop calling him that. Ó╭╮Ò
He will sue anyone who calls him a punk-ass bitch. Unless it's Kendrick, because he totally feels bad for him after absolutely winning the beef in every single way you could possibly imagine.
To be fair to Drake, there does seem to be a difference between normal smack talk and calling someone a "certified pedophile."
But if the shoe fits...it must be love
I just think it's hilarious that he's not actually suing Kendrick. First it was Spotify and UMG for the promotion of the music now it's UMG defaming but not Kendrick.
< Jennifer Lawrence okay.gif >
Drake sucks. He tried to strike 'Like That' early on, too.
The actual filing is one of the most fun reads of a legal filing in quite some time.
We get things like:
If this doesn't belong in ~music, please move to wherever appropriate!
I'm not a lawyer but is he trying to keep Kendrick from performing the diss tracks at the Super Bowl? And would that even work?
With Kendrick's level of talent, he could just write entirely new lyrics all about how Drake is "Not Like Us" because he sues over rap beefs and still have an entire stadium full of people dancing along to it. He regularly changes up his lyrics when he performs live.
Legal Eagle video
Is Drake not seeing the worst case scenario here? Given that
I think it would be reasonable for a distant observer to conclude from Drake is in fact a pedophile.
Obviously that’s invalid logic but my gut says it wouldn’t be an uncommon conclusion.
Weird, when I share that link, the title and description say the case was withdrawn.
But the article headline and info imply the opposite.
I suppose BBC's meta description info for the page is screwy
The first piece of news today was that the payola petition was dropped. The second piece of news is that the defamation petition has gone to a lawsuit. It seems they tried to resolve this within the same article and ended up with conflicting headlines that are actually about two different filings.
Huh, I just noticed the page title. This got me curious. According to the Wayback Machine, this was indeed was an updated article from earlier today. Here's the original. BBC just didn't say they updated it. Or that they overwrote it completely, rather.
Ah nice. Good thought on using the wayback machine.