Conviction of rapper upheld for threatening of 2 officers

The state’s highest court on Tuesday upheld the conviction of a rapper who was prosecuted for threatening two Pittsburgh police officers in a song posted on YouTube.

The Supreme Court said the song by Jamal Knox espoused violence against two specific officers, Daniel Zeltner and Michael Kosko, and so is not protected free speech.

The opinion upholds the conviction of Knox for terroristic threats and witness intimidation.

The justices acknowledged that “gangsta rap” is an art form that often contains references to violence against police.

But in this case, they said, the naming of officers with direct threats to kill them crossed the line from abstraction to intimidation.

“Most saliently, the calling out by name of two officers involved in [Knox’s] criminal cases who were scheduled to testify against him, and the clear expression repeated in various ways that these officers are being selectively

targetedin response to prior interactions with [Knox], stand in conflict with the contention that the song was meant to be understood as fiction.”

Knox, 23, wrote and performed the song with another man, Rashee Beasley, 26, in 2012. It ended up on YouTube, although the two said they did not post it. The vulgar lyrics contain specific references to Detective Zeltner and former Officer Kosko, who had arrested the men previously, and talks in graphic terms about killing them as well as other police and “fed force” agents targeting drug dealers.

Knox and Beasley were convicted at a bench trial by Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Manning.Knox, who has already served his prison term, appealed the conviction to the SuperiorCourt and lost.

The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case on free speech grounds.

Knox’s lawyer, Patrick Nightingale, argued the song was “artistic.” He said his client did not intend it as a threat and the men did not post it on YouTube, so there was no proof they intended the officers to hear it. But the district attorney’s office said whether or not they intended it to be posted didn’t matter.

Assistant District Attorney Francesco Nepa said the law doesn’t require the speaker to actually intend to carry out the threat but is meant to protect targets from the fear that they will.

He said both officers feared being targeted for violence after the song came out. Officer Kosko said that he left the department in part because of the song.

TheAmerican Civil Liberties Union had sided with Mr. Nightingale, saying rap is a form of political expression and that prosecutors did notdetermine Knox’s state of mind. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the lyrics go beyond “generalized animosity”toward police.

“They do not include political, social, or academic commentary, nor are they facially satirical or ironic,” wrote Chief Justice Thomas Saylor. “Rather, they primarily portray violence toward the police, ostensibly due to the officers’ interference with appellants’ activities.”