Should an actor’s role in a movie be used against them in court?

Imagine prosecutors bringing criminal charges against Nick Castle, Tony Moran, Dick Warlock, or the few others who played Michael Myers in the Halloween movies, and using their roles in those movies as evidence against them. What if this happened with any actor and their role in any movie? That would silly right? I’m sure people would speak out loudly across social media and the rest of the internet while pointing out that the actors are merely participating in art.

If prosecutors regularly followed this plan, actors would surely limit the role they would accept for the simple reason to avoid regularly fighting allegations in court that their fictional art is fact. This is taking place right now but not with the art of acting. It’s happening with hip hop music. If you haven’t heard much about it lately, just Google the words Hip Hop, lyrics, and charges. You are sure to come up with something.

What happened to prosecutors doing their jobs, finding evidence of a crime and using that evidence to prove a case? I’m sure you’ve heard of circumstantial evidence before. This is known to be a weaker level of evidence but us used to support the prosecutors theory of a crime. Hip Hop lyrics fall into this category of evidence. Prosecutors may rely on this more when their cases are weak or targets someone they really want to have locked up. It’s a wonder how circumstantial evidence doesn’t lead to more police brutality or police misconduct charges but is somehow leads to minorities and those with lower socioeconomic statuses being charged.

“When they say rap can be used against you, it limits your art…”

Bobby Shmurda

Maybe we should target the makers of horror films and The Purge.