ABSTRACT

In 1990, 2 Live Crew’s battles with the Florida judicial system brought the Miami-based rap group to national prominence as they faced prosecution on the grounds of obscenity for their album As Nasty As They Wanna Be. This was not the first time that musicians had been brought to trial on such charges. Four years earlier Jello Biafra, lead singer of hardcore punk band the Dead Kennedys and owner of the independent Alternative Tentacles record label, had been charged with distributing “harmful matter to minors,” on the basis of a graphic poster included with the band’s Frankenchrist album. As Nasty As They Wanna Be, however, moved the battle over obscenity to completely different grounds as the rappers were indicted solely for their music. The trial drew extensive commentary, including a special feature that appeared in Reconstruction, a Harvard-based journal devoted to issues of African American culture. Reprinted here from Reconstruction are two items: Judge Jose Gonzalez’s ruling on the case and a response from Kathleen M. Sullivan, a professor of Constitutional Law. Both of their comments revolve around the three-pronged criteria for obscenity outlined in the 1973 Miller v. California ruling, a case that had involved the mass distribution of graphically illustrated advertisements for sex books. In his statement, Judge Gonzalez refutes the trial testimony of Carlton Long, a Columbia University political science professor who defended the band’s music as part of such longstanding black cultural traditions as boasting and parody.1 2 Live Crew’s music, Gonzalez declares, is inarguably obscene. Sullivan responds by questioning the very logic of Miller v. California itself. In the end, 2 Live Crew was vindicated when nearly a year and a half after their conviction, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Gonzalez ruling. The Supreme Court upheld the decision, refusing to hear any further appeals.