• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

A Florida administrative judge has recommended that “Me So Horny” rapper Luther Campbell, whose graphic and violent lyrics such as “me f— you long time” once were defended by now-Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, be allowed to coach a high school football team.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Meale noted in his recommendation that the 2 Live Crew frontman, 52, already has been helping out with coaching duties and his criminal past is “storied.”

“For the past seven years, petitioner has had significant direct contact with vulnerable youth without any reported problems,” said Meale’s order, quoted by the Sentinel. “In light of this critical fact, the 1979 misdemeanor, 1986 misdemeanor, and petitioner’s former involvement with 2LC and the adult entertainment industry lose whatever contrary predictive value that they might otherwise have.”

Meale did recommend that Campbell be on a five-year probation, the report said, and his certificate be reviewed. One of the conditions would be that he would have to notify the state should he perform or produce any “sexually explicit song.”

The state could accept the recommendation, reject it or even modify it, officials said.

The state Education Department previously had rejected Campbell’s request, citing a charge of inciting a riot, a plea deal nearly a decade ago involving a lewd performance and a previous gun charge, the Sentinel said.

But Meale said that now Campbell “does not resemble the youth who committed the 1979 misdemeanor or 1986 misdemeanor or the man who performed with and promoted 2LC 20 years ago.”

An online music reference, allmusic, described Campbell as “at one time arguably the nation’s most controversial hip-hop figure.”

His work prompted a “national campaign” against obscene lyrics, the report said.

At the Miami New Times, where Campbell has been a columnist, Francisco Alvarado noted the previous opposition from the state.

“Apparently, state education officials have a problem with Campbell’s First Amendment right to produce and perform raunchy lyrics,” he wrote.

In a column in that publication, cited by the Urban Daily, Campbell boasted of his battle over the lyrics of 2 Live Crew’s “As Nasty as They Wanna Be” and the support of Justice Kagan:

“In 1989, Broward County Sheriff Nick Navarro banned the sale of our album, As Nasty as They Wanna Be, and a federal judge backed him. We appealed. The next year, Kagan, who was working at a Washington, D.C., law firm, wrote a brief that argued the album ‘does not physically excite anyone who hears it, much less arouse a shameful and morbid sexual response.’ In other words, my homegirl Kagan was saying people could not be aroused by the lyrics ’cause my d—- on bone’ or ‘me so horny, me f— you long time.’ She realized these words did not meet the standard of appealing to prurient interests. She did a great job fighting on 2 Live Crew’s behalf.”

Records of the dispute indicate Kagan did not represent 2 Live Crew directly but instead filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the claim that the lyrics were not obscene.

Critics, however, have said the lyrics go far beyond just sexually explicit into misogynistic and violent.

The lyrics “I’ll break you down … break your backbone” were wrapped around explicit sexual references and “I’m gonna slay you, rough and painful.” Additionally, lyrics about “lick my a–” were linked to scatological descriptions.

Kagan, in her writings, has expressed concern about free speech and asserted that it should be weighed against “societal costs.” She advocated silencing some kinds of speech, such as speech that promotes “racial or gender inequality,” and said it could be “disappeared.”

Prior to her top court position, Kagan served as U.S. solicitor under Obama, where her advocacy for the president’s centerpiece health-care legislation has become an issue.

A former clerk to Abner Mikva at the D.C. federal appeals court, Kagan was also heavily involved in promoting the health-care policy of the Clinton administration, which served as the foundation for what would become Obamacare.

WND previously reviewed Kagan’s sparse academic writings – she penned just nine articles, two of which are book reviews.

In her 1993 article “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V” for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”

Also in a 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

The paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of “motives and … actions infested with them.” She goes so far as to claim that First Amendment law “is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting.”

Kagan’s name was also on a brief, United States v. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.