meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Slate News

Rapper's Intent

Slate News

Slate Podcasts

News Commentary, Politics, News

4.56K Ratings

🗓️ 6 December 2014

⏱️ 31 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Dahlia Lithwick talks to rap music scholar Charis Kubrin about Elonis v. U.S., and about how courts are using rap lyrics in criminal proceedings. She also hears from Sam Bagenstos, who argued this week’s pregnancy discrimination case Young v. United Parcel Service.

Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required.


Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

Welcome to Alicus, Slate's Legal Affairs podcast. I'm Dahlia Lithwick, Slate's Supreme Court correspondent.

0:09.9

And we thought we'd kick things off this week with a little court audio from this past Monday.

0:15.2

This is Chief Justice John Roberts, sampling Eminem, the rap star, in an argument about what kind of speech falls outside

0:22.9

of First Amendment protection because it qualifies as what's known as a true threat.

0:28.6

You know, dad and make a nice bed for mommy at the bottom of lake, tie a rope around a rock.

0:34.0

This is during the context of a domestic dispute between, you know, a husband and wife,

0:41.5

there goes mama, splashing in the water, no more fighting with dad, you know, all that stuff.

0:46.9

Now, under your test, could that be prosecuted? No, because if you look at the context of these

0:51.9

statements. Because Eminem said it instead of somebody else.

0:54.9

This case called Alonis versus U.S.

0:57.8

involves a self-described aspiring rapper who uses very violent language on Facebook

1:03.3

in reference to his estranged wife, his children, an elementary school,

1:08.5

his former co-workers, and a female FBI agent.

1:12.5

Later on in today's podcast, we're going to talk to a scholar of rap music in the law

1:16.3

about how rap music has been invoked in courtrooms.

1:19.5

But before that, we want to turn to another case, argued this week, Young v. United

1:24.6

Parcel Service. This case centers on whether UPS had the obligation to accommodate a pregnant driver who wanted to be assigned a lighter lifting load for the duration of her pregnancy. UPS said to Peggy Young, no, we won't give you that accommodation. They put her on unpaid leave. She lost her benefits, including her health benefits, and sued under a statute that says

1:46.9

that employers have to accommodate pregnant workers. Joining me to talk about that case is Sam Beganstas,

1:53.8

who teaches law at the University of Michigan Law School and argue the case on behalf of Peggy Young.

1:59.2

Sam, welcome to Amicus.

2:02.3

Thanks for having me.

2:12.4

So one thing that's a little bit complicated is the facts of the case here, which really have to do with, it seems to me, the vagaries of what you have to lift to work at UPS. So can you set the table for us and explain to us who your client Peggy Young is and what her job at UPS

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Slate Podcasts, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Slate Podcasts and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.