idk about this ruling... seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me 
. if we start excluding certain lines just because they might be misinterpreted, where do we draw the line? is it gonna be every song that has some kinda "hot" lyric? 
it's like, lil durk is already accused of something serious... shouldn't we focus on the facts rather than trying to interpret his lyrics as evidence? but at the same time, i get why the defense team wants to protect their client's right to artistic expression 
. maybe they can find a middle ground where they still show his alleged involvement with violence without relying on lyrical analysis?
. if we start excluding certain lines just because they might be misinterpreted, where do we draw the line? is it gonna be every song that has some kinda "hot" lyric? it's like, lil durk is already accused of something serious... shouldn't we focus on the facts rather than trying to interpret his lyrics as evidence? but at the same time, i get why the defense team wants to protect their client's right to artistic expression . maybe they can find a middle ground where they still show his alleged involvement with violence without relying on lyrical analysis?
and it's not fair that his lyrics are being used against him. but at the same time, i can see why the prosecution would want to use them as evidence... it's all about how the lyrics are perceived by jurors 
. i think it's so important to consider the context of what was said and when 
. anyway, i'm keeping an eye on this case and hoping for a fair outcome 