A recent episode concerning violence and racism against Asian-Americans has gone viral. The well-known rapper YG’s song “Meet the Flockers” has sparked wide uproars in the Chinese-American community across the country.
For those who are familiar with YG’s music, they might ask why Chinese-Americans reacted so strongly to “Meet the Flockers” that was released in 2014. In fact, the Chinese-American communities, especially restaurant owners and small business owners, have been protesting since the song’s birth. They have petitioned and asked YouTube to remove the video, but debate ensued over whether or not the song was protected by the First Amendment.
What makes the song so bad is that the lyrics of the song are detailed instruction of how to rob a Chinese-American’s home. For example, the song recommends robbers “find a Chinese neighborhood, cause they don’t believe in bank accounts,” implying that there might be plenty of cash in a typical Chinese-American household.
The anger from Chinese-American communities has escalated recently because of a burglary that took place last month at a private property in Atlanta. According to Russia Today, three armed robbers invaded a Chinese woman’s private property, but the “gun-wielding” lady exchanged fire with the robbers, killing one of them, and the other two escaped.
Surprisingly, the whole burglary was recorded by CCTV and later spread by the internet. After media broke the news and the police released further information, the owner of the property received praises due to her bravery to fight off three male robbers. At the same time, however, the robbery has reminded many Chinese-Americans that this might be the rippling effect of YG’s song. At the very least, the event was a perfect example of how inappropriate the song really is.
Many Chinese and Asian-Americans find YG’s song highly offensive and racially discriminatory. For instance, Jane Kim, a candidate for the California State Senate, alleges that the video of “Meet the Flockers” promotes the targeting of Chinese for home invasion. She calls the song “anti-Asian-American” and the imagery in it “deeply offensive” to Chinese-Americans.
Yet, this song is not merely about racism and offense to the Chinese-American community; it also viciously promotes violence and invasion of private property. Suppose this music video didn’t specifically target Chinese-Americans, but instead other households. Even in such an instance it should still be considered to be speech inciting violence.
As the U.S. has a strong commitment to protect free speech, it is not likely that YG’s song will be censored. In a landmark Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court overturned a lower court’s decision that Clarence Brandenburg, a KKK member, violated Ohio’s state law that prohibited “advocating the duty, necessity or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.” The majority opinion argued that the Constitution does not permit a state to prohibit speech regarding the use of force unless such speech is intentional and likely to incite such action.
Despite being ambiguous on defining the boundary of free speech, the Supreme Court puts unequal weights on protecting free speech and private property that is also guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. Private property rights are sacred and protected from being transgressed by all entities and people but owners themselves.
On the bright side, governments and courts are only part of the effort to preserve and protect property rights. In YG’s case, cooperation between corporations, civil movements and local communities is necessary to alleviate such activities in the name of art or entertainment. Local communities can unite and voice their concerns to educate the public about the hazardous influence of the song, while corporations that are responsible for distribution of the music should set up stricter measures on the content.
