Alicia Keys thinks that Gangsta Rap was created to make blacks murder each other, and that the feds made Biggie and Tupac kill each other:
The Grammy-winning singer-songwriter tells Blender magazine: "'Gangsta rap' was a ploy to convince black people to kill each other. 'Gangsta rap' didn't exist." Keys, 27, said she's read several Black Panther autobiographies and wears a gold AK-47 pendent around her neck "to symbolize strength, power and killing 'em dead," according to an interview in the magazine's May issue, on newsstands Tuesday. Another of her theories: The bicoastal feud between slain rappers Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. was fueled "by the government and the media, to stop another great black leader from existing."
This bitch is psychotic.
Of course, she's tried to recant her statement, saying she was misinterpreted.
What a fucking clown.
Experts: YouTube not to blame for attack videoEight teens face charges for the beating video that was posted online
updated 3:23 p.m. PT, Fri., April. 11, 2008
NEW YORK, N.Y. - Eight Florida teenagers charged with beating another teen so they could post the "animalistic" attack on YouTube got exactly what they had wanted — worldwide exposure.
But that doesn't mean YouTube or any other media company should get the blame, legally or ethically, for the attack, media experts said Friday.
In fact, they have a duty to share the video, said Kelly McBride, the ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla.
"The fact that the video was shot because they were seeking publicity was secondary," McBride said. "A crime was committed in our community, and if there's a videotape of it, I want some information. That video was incredibly revealing. It told more truth about what happened than any other form of reporting could have told."
The teenagers have been arrested on charges that they beat the teen so they could make a video of the attack to post online. One of the girls struck the 16-year-old victim on the head several times and then slammed her head into a wall, knocking her unconscious, according to an arrest report.
"It's absolutely an animalistic attack," Sheriff Grady Judd said earlier this week. "They lured her into the home for the express purpose of filming the attack and posting it on the Internet."
Court hearing
On Friday, a judge set bail for each of the defendants at $30,000 during the teens' first court appearance. Prosecutors said seven of the girls will be tried as adults in the March 30 attack in Lakeland, Fla. They face charges of kidnapping, battery and witness tampering.
It's not clear who posted the video on the Internet. But the Polk County sheriff's office released a clip that has been widely circulating online and on television, including The Associated Press' video network.
Those who blame YouTube or news organizations should blame themselves first, said Steve Jones, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
"The public is culpable as well because they are paying attention," he said. "There is no medium that forces them to pay attention."
CNN spokeswoman Barbara Levin said the cable news network has tried to place the video in the proper context.
"In reporting the story, we have gone to great lengths to explain that these young women face severe consequences for their actions, and in fact may be facing harsher sentencing because the videotape provides evidence of the nature of the attacks," she said in a statement.
No YouTube comment
YouTube, owned by Google Inc., declined to comment on the video, but said its general policies call for the removal of clips that show someone getting "hurt, attacked or humiliated."
From a legal standpoint, YouTube and other online service providers are largely exempt from liability because of a 1996 anti-pornography law. One provision says Internet service providers are not considered publishers simply because they retransmit information provided by their users or other sources.
Federal courts have applied that broadly to cover not just Internet access providers, but also video-sharing sites, message boards and other online services.
Even without that provision, there doesn't appear to be anything illegal about the video, said John Morris, senior counsel with the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil-liberties group in Washington, D.C.
"There is no legal reason this video cannot be shown. It is obviously distasteful, abhorrent what the teenagers did to the victim, but it doesn't really make sense (to ask), 'Should YouTube have taken it down?'" Morris said.
Even if there were a claim of illegality, he said, the courts should be the ones deciding, not YouTube.
"Many of those assertions are really very difficult, legal determinations that YouTube has no ability to make," Morris said. "Really, YouTube is not in a position to be a traffic cop."
Damn fucking straight, MySpace and YouTube aren't to blame for some dipshit teenage girls savage assault.
I can't say I expect more from our society, though, when you have dumb cunts like "Dr. Phil" paying the bail for the ringleader of this attack.
Why can't Phil McGraw be the victim of a random drive-by?
Thanks to NAL for this one. Too fucking awesome.
Teens Arrested for Video AttackLast Update: 4/8/2008 4:44:51 PM
Author: Donald BuckindailLakeland, Florida - The victim's father is furious with internet companies that post the videos.
Patrick says “I'm very upset with these internet companies as far as I'm concerned MySpace is the anti-Christ for children."
Trash talking on a MySpace page is what led to this beat down according to the Polk County Sheriff's Office. But the victim's mother says it wasn't her daughter who bad-mouthed the girls on the social networking page. It was someone else.
Talisa says "Well we knew that someone had hacked into her My Space because she made us aware of it."
The videotaped fight released on Monday afternoon by the Polk County Sheriff's office was just one of five fights filmed over a period of 30 minutes. At one point the victim's head is slammed into a bedroom wall and she's knocked unconscious. The girls accused of taping it seem to enjoy it. You can hear them on tape cheering each other on and begging the victim to “fight back!”
The fight happened on March 30th at 6124 West Calendar Court in Lakeland. The victim was spending time at a friend's house during spring break last week but that friend is now charged with attacking her.
Sheriff Grady Judd spoke about a portion on the tape where one girl said, “There's only 17 seconds left. Make it good. That is animalistic behavior. It's pack mentality. They lured her there to beat her."
When the victim tried to leave you can see one of the attacker's blocking her from leaving.
Officials say the girls planned to post the video on the internet for all to see. Talisa says “This MySpace, You Tube. It's just gone too far and what's it's doing to our kids it's just too much."
Polk County Sheriff's office says when the attack was over, three of the suspects forced the victim into a vehicle and took her to another location where they let her go. They told her not to call law enforcement or she would be beaten even worse.
Talisa and Patrick say their daughter is now having nightmares and doesn't want to go back to high school. They say she still has a lot of healing to do both emotionally and physically.
Patrick says "When I saw my daughter in the emergency room I didn't recognize my own daughter. It was that bad."
The six girls accused in the beating are between the ages of 14 and 17. Two males, aged 16 and 18, are accused of being look-outs during the beating. They live on the same street.
Friends and family members say they did nothing wrong but did give the girls a ride home after they gave up some gas money.
The victim is out of the hospital and back at home. Her parents say they're worried about permanent damage to her ear and her eye.
Meanwhile her father says it's likely that the 11th grader will never return to public school they'll home school her instead.
6 p.m. Story
Lakeland, Florida - The Polk County Sheriff's office released the video of a teenage girl who, as Sheriff Grady Judd puts it, was "lured so her friends could beat her."
The video shows what Judd says is the second of five beatings the 16-year-old received from people she knew. The attackers say they were upset with so-called "trash talk" the victim posted on her MySpace page, and they say they wanted to post their own video of the beating on MySpace and YouTube.
The sheriff says the victim was first beaten unconscious in a bedroom. When she awoke, she was on a couch in the living room, where the screaming and beatings continued.
"It is disgusting that the attackers find it funny and want to post something on the Internet showing someone nearly beaten to death," says the victim's mother.
Sheriff Judd is calling it one of the most disturbing videos he has seen in a long time and he hopes all those arrested will be tried as adults. They face charges ranging from felony battery, false imprisonment to kidnapping. The sheriff says the attackers "were relentless."
Even though those involved could face prison time, Judd says the teens showed no remorse after their arrests.
"When they were in a holding cell, they were all laughing," Judd says. "One of the teens arrested, who is a cheerleader, asked, 'Does this mean I'm going to miss cheerleading practice tomorrow?' The others were cutting up and said, 'It looks like we won't be going to the beach this weekend.'"
While the attackers can laugh off the incident, the victim's mother certainly can't.
"You never think it will happen to your family," she says. "To have this happen and see it... is hard to bear."
Click here to read a statement released by the Polk County Sheriff's Office. (PDF)
Mike Deeson, Tampa Bay's 10 News
Holy shit, where does one even start with this?
First, don't shit talk people unless you're willing to put up with the consequences. "Oh, my MySpace was hacked!" Great excuse.
By no means should that excuse what happened, but, God DAMN, fuckers, keep your fucking mouth shut, unles you're willing to back it up. I can't even begin to count how many little fucking punk-ass bitches try to step up and talk some shit when we've been out and about over the last few years, and invariably, they puss out when confronted. These fuckers are lucky they're living in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, and not someplace where running your yap will get you shot.
Carrying on...
MySpace and YouTube haven't "gone too far" and they aren't doing anything to anyone's kids. This "Talisa" needs to have her ass beat for trying to place the blame on anyone but the attackers and their parenting.
MySpace has been around for something like five years, and YouTube for about three.
In those years, of all the individuals that I'm acquainted (family, friends, etc.)with in a similar age category of the attackers of this article, not a single one of them has done anything such as this.
Further, events like these are isolated incidences - there's not some huge "MySpace Video Beatdown Wave" surging across the nation.
You want to blame someone? Blame the parents of these people for raising violent felons. Or, better yet, blame the fucking attackers themselves.
You want to stop shit like this from happening? When the victim recovers, you let her choose five friends, give them all some Louisville Sluggers, and let them work over each of the six attackers, one at a time, while the others are forced to watch, knowing that they're turn is coming up.
They say that violence begets violence. Yeah, well. Violence also begets a legal slap on the wrist, which begets further violence.
An-eye-for-an-eye works. It's the simplest legal system there is, and it used to work in this country pretty damned well, until we let the liberals have their way.
Now, with that all said, yeah, I agree with the mother, it IS disgusting that these vermin find shit like this funny, and want to post it on the Internet.
MySpace and YouTube, upon notification of their hosting of an illegal video depicting a felony crime, should, as a socially responsible organization, remove that video - but depicting them as the at-fault party here, especially when allowing the local news channel to host the video, and likely air it on TV over and over again, is a complete load of horseshit.
Deny the thugs their fifteen minutes of fame, but don't even start to try to blame innocent third parties for the assault.
In what will likely result in my lynching by those pussy Garand enthusiasts, I need to get my hands on a nice Garand and one of these:
http://www.dpmsinc.com/store/products/?prod=649&cat=1785
Then, I just need to get an IBM M1 Carbine, one of the synth stocks for it, and have both it and the Garand stock krinkle-finished to match my M1A, and all will be well with the world.
:)
Long article. You've been warned.
Was School Strip-Search Legal?Case Pits Students' Privacy Rights vs. Need to Keep Drugs, Weapons Out of Schools
By REYNOLDS HOLDING
ABC News Law & Justice Unit
March 28, 2008A student strip-searched for drugs when she was in eighth grade took her case to a federal appeals court on Wednesday, arguing through a lawyer that school officials had violated her constitutional rights by overzealously enforcing a strict policy against alcohol, narcotics – and, in her case, Ibuprofen.
Savana Redding says she was "confused" and "ashamed" after the officials in Safford, Ariz., suspected her in 2003 of giving other students prescription Ibuprofen pills and ordered her to expose her breasts and pelvic area during a search in the school nurse's office. She denied having any pills, and none were found. Her mother later filed on her behalf a federal lawsuit claiming the search was unreasonable and therefore illegal.
"A strip search, particularly of an adolescent, is a grave invasion of privacy and should be reserved for emergency situations," Andrew Petersen, one of Redding's lawyers, said in a written statement. "The misguided actions of these school officials must not become the status quo in our nation's schools."
"When it comes to drugs and weapons," Matthew Wright said, "school districts just can't take the chance of not going forward and being sure."
The case is one of dozens that have recently challenged public schools on where to draw the line between the privacy rights of students and the need to keep drugs and violence out of the classroom. Courts have generally upheld school strip searches only when they were necessary to avoid a severe health or safety threat. But laws banning or strictly limiting such searches exist in seven states: California, Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wisconsin, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Wednesday's argument was the third round in a legal fight that has been going on since 2004. On March 15, 2005, a U.S. district judge ruled in favor of the school district without a trial. Last year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld that ruling by a vote of 2-1. In January, the full court of appeals agreed to review the case, and it heard oral arguments Wednesday. A decision is not expected for at least several months.
According to court documents, the dispute started in October 2003, when a student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Ariz., told the vice principal that Redding, then 13, and her friends were bringing drugs to school. A week later, the student showed the vice principal a pill that he said was from Redding's friend. The pill turned out to be prescription-strength Ibuprofen.
A recently adopted school policy prohibited all drugs on school grounds, including any "prescription or over-the-counter drug" like Ibuprofen, except when specifically permitted by the school. The vice principal asked Redding's friend about the pill, and she said Redding had given it to her.
The vice principal then hauled Redding out of class for questioning. After she denied knowing anything about the pills, he asked if she would agree to be searched, and she said she would. The vice principal looked in her backpack, found nothing and then sent her to the nurse's office.
"I was just like, did I do something wrong?" Redding recalls. "I was thinking, if I don't do this [go to the nurse's office], they're going to think that I did do something wrong, and I'll get into more trouble."
While the nurse watched, a female secretary had Redding strip to her underwear, pull her bra to the side and her panties out at the crotch and expose her breasts and pelvic area. After no pills appeared, Redding got dressed.
Redding says she didn't return to class but sat in the vice principal's office and called her mother to pick her up. She was afraid to tell her mom on the phone what had happened, she recalls, because "the secretary was listening" and "I was like really ashamed, like it was my fault." A friend later spilled the beans about the search, and Redding says her mom "was more mad than I was. I felt really stupid."
The incident was so humiliating that Redding says she couldn't return to school for months. "Everyone knew what had happened, and they were talking about me," she recalls. "I got really nervous, developed ulcers and started puking."
Eventually, Redding transferred to another school, and today, at age 17, she is still trying to make up for lost time at what she describes as an alternative high school.
"I remember how much I enjoyed school," she says. "I won all kinds of certificates, I was on the honor roll, I was doing pretty good. And I had never been in trouble before."
"I would have felt better if they had called my mom" before doing the strip search, she says.
Wright, the lawyer for the school district, says the school's strict drug policy is still in effect. He is not aware of any specific rules on strip searches but stresses the duty of schools "to closely supervise students and provide a safe environment." As for the strip search of Redding, he says it was based on "reasonable grounds."
"Remember," he says, "this was prescription strength Ibuprofen."
OH NOES, NOT PRESCRIPTION-STRENGTH IBUPROFEN! ONE TABLET HAS THE POWER OF FOUR OVER-THE-COUNTER IBUPROFEN! IBUPROFEN ABUSE HAS BEEN LINKED TO DECREASED HEADACHES AND REDUCED INFLAMMATION!!! BAN IT FOR THE CHILDREN!
How the fuck does a school get off "banning" an OTC drug that a child can purchase, and what kind of fucking mental midget lawyer does this district have?
Further, where does a school get off thinking that it has the authority to physically search a student, and go as far as a strip-search? This whole district needs a house-cleaning.
T-Shirts Create Stir Between Rival SchoolsPOSTED: 6:46 am PDT April 2, 2008
UPDATED: 7:00 am PDT April 2, 2008BEAVERTON, Ore. -- T-shirts worn by a group of Beaverton High School students at a recent basketball game have created a stir amongst students.
Beaverton and Jesuit high schools have had a long-standing rivalry, but some students and administrators say the T-shirts highlight Jesuit stereotypes. The T-shirts read:
"Cost of recruiting… $30,000"
"Paying off the refs… $1,000"
"Driving Daddy's Beamer… $78,500"
"Not going to Jesuit… priceless"It prompted Jesuit officials to make a complaint to Beaverton administrators. School officials called the shirt inappropriate and distracting.
Students at Beaverton said it was all in good fun.
"It's just a high school rivalry," said Daniel Koszalka, a Beaverton senior. "There's nothing that really came out of it, nothing really happened, no violence, no profanity, so they just need to get over it."
But Jesuit students said the T-shirts crossed the line.
"The student body is well aware of the stereotypes we have in Oregon and having them thrown in our face is never really fun," said Jake Gardner, a Jesuit senior. "We deal with it, but having them amplified like that is never fun."
Jesuit officials said their complaint wasn't a formal complaint. Beaverton administrators said they weren't aware of the shirt before it was printed.
Waugh waugh, boo hoo. Shut the fuck up, Jesuit fags. Go drown your sorrows in a $20 latte.
"...having them thrown in our face is never really fun."
Give me a fucking break - you little rich kiddies with your hardship-free lives are just ACHING for something to bitch about. Sit the fuck down, Poindexters.
Oh, and Beaverton administration: What exactly do you think you would have been able to do if you were aware of the shirt before it was printed? Do you really believe you have any power or authority over a private person getting shirts printed?
