Rap on Trial: The Political and Legal Battles Over Jo le Phéno and Nick Conrad’s Music Videos

Abstract

Through the ethnography of two trials—of rapper Jo le Phéno, under investigation for his track “Bavure”, and of Nick Conrad for “PLB”—this article analyses the role of the law in the social construction of the rap genre. While recent commentary by legal experts emphasizes the idea of a “legal shield” for rap, both artists were sentenced in the court of first instance. The article aims to shed light on the paradox of apparently protective case law yet still-frequent convictions. Comparative analysis of the two cases identifies the position taken by the legal institution by which it defines incriminated tracks’ access to the status of work of art and to legitimate and legal politically engaged speech, drawing from interactions, categories, and cross-representations of social relations of power (age, class, sex, and race). The hearings, perceived as a space of symbolic violence, document a dynamic common to both trials: the court’s reversal of the artists’ use of a confessional style and an anchoring in reality as artistic choices made to illegitimise the work and the defendants. The latter are then categorized via the assignment of marginalizing labels which devalue and distance them from the status of artist as it is nevertheless recognized in case law. Through these two cases, we see how the law constructs the “paradoxical (il)legitimacy” of rap, as identified by Karim Hammou in the 2010s (2012, 2016): a genre that is neither fully legitimized nor fully illegitimate, but which is singled out as a minority-group art form—an ambivalence that explains the coexistence of protective case law and convictions.