Limits the admissibility of evidence of a defendant's creative or artistic expression against such defendant in a criminal proceeding

• Democratic4

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why the sponsor says this is needed

There is no New York without art, whether it is provoking or inspiring, beautiful or crude. As recognized by the New York State Court of Appeals many decades ago, New York is "a cultural center for the Nation" that has "long provided a hospitable climate for the free exchange of ideas." Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 249 (1991). This is not happenstance, but the direct result of the enhanced protections that this State's Constitution provides for speech and creative expression. Recent scholarship has highlighted a disturbing trend poised to threaten the haven New York has always provided its artists. In courtrooms across the country, artists' musical works are being admitted against them as "evidence" in criminal proceedings. Just as concerning, the mere appre- ciation of others' music-whether through reposting lyrics, performing, or simply listening-is also being used as "evidence." Unchecked, these practices chill free expression, transform the figurative into fact, and warp criminal courts into instruments for suppressing provocative speech. Moreover, these practices ignore the foundational principle that a criminal case should be tried on the facts and not on a person's "propensity" to commit the crime. Rap has come under scrutiny for decades, being blamed by the media for criminal activity, and admitted as evidence of criminal behavior by the artist. Social scientists have linked anti-rap attitudes and racially discriminatory behavior. But rap is just like any other creative expression. The New Jersey Supreme Court wrote that "one cannot presume that simply because an author has chosen to write about certain topics, he or she has acted in accordance with those views" (State v. Skinner, 218 N.J. 496, 517, 521 (2014)). The court noted that no one believes that Bob Marley actually "shot the sheriff," or that there's a man buried in Edgar Allan Poe's floorboards. This legislation would guarantee freedom of creative expression in New York by prohibiting prosecutors from using creative expression as crimi- nal evidence against a person without clear and convincing proof that there is a literal, factual nexus between the creative expression and the facts of the case.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.