Legal Experts Warn Drake Lawsuit Risks Racial Bias, Free Speech

Drake's defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over Kendrick Lamar's diss track "Not Like Us" has drawn sharp criticism from legal scholars who warn that treating rap lyrics as literal statements in court is dangerous and risks inviting racial bias. Four legal experts submitted an amicus brief supporting UMG's motion to dismiss the case, emphasizing that rap diss tracks are a recognized form of hyperbolic artistic expression meant to entertain and assert dominance rather than convey factual accusations. They argue that interpreting lyrics literally threatens First Amendment free speech protections and could have a chilling effect on hip-hop and artistic expression more broadly. The scholars highlight concerns that such legal treatment could exacerbate racial prejudice in the justice system by allowing stereotypes to influence courtroom proceedings. Drake's lawsuit, which accuses UMG of defaming him by promoting Lamar's lyrics that label him a "certified pedophile," is viewed by UMG and the scholars as an attack on Lamar's commercial and creative success rather than a legitimate defamation claim. This case raises broader implications about the intersection of art, law, and race, with experts urging courts to recognize the unique conventions of hip-hop lyrics and reject literal interpretations that undermine artistic freedom.