Why we should all be concerned by the censorship of UK Drill music

A recent BBC documentary centred on rapper Digga D’s release from prison has laid bare the troubling nature of the UK government’s censorship of Drill music. As the 20-year-old musician attempted to re-integrate into society, he was faced with multiple unfounded vehicle stop and searches, harsh probation conditions, and attempts to recall the Drill rapper after he attended a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest. There was a troubling sense that the Police were primarily concerned with disrupting the work and schedule of the young rapper, rather than providing genuine rehabilitation. The cyclical nature of the UK’s criminal justice system is nothing new; however, the measures that the Met Police are now using to censor Drill artists has reached unprecedented levels.

New ground was broken when the Met Police issued Digga D with a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) in 2018, making the West London rapper the first artist to be handed a CBO that affects his ability to release music. The measure means that the rapper, real name Rhys Herbert, must notify the police within 24 hours each time he uploads any new audio or visual material, as well as including song lyrics and where it has been uploaded. Last month marked the end of a 2-year suspended sentence for Brixton rappers Skengdo and AM, who were sentenced in January 2019 for breaking a court injunction by performing a song. The track, ‘Attempted 1.0’, was used as proof of gang-related activity, despite no evidence proving that Skengdo and AM’s musical group 410 were involved in any violence. This musical censorship sets a dangerous new precedent, particularly given that for UK Drill artists, the production of music often represents their only means of escaping crippling violence and poverty. As Skengdo himself told the Guardian at the time: “It’s changed the way we have to write, the way we express ourselves, the things we say – and that in itself is a problem. We have to change the way we do things to accommodate the police”.

It should be clear that by appreciating the artistic qualities of Drill music and questioning the stringent state monitoring of musicians, we are not condoning the violence which certain rappers have been associated with. Unfortunately for the proponents of the view that Drill should be banned for its connections to violent crime – the reality is that most Drill artists are keen to separate themselves from such violence. For most rappers, music represents a rare path to financial stability and physical safety. The fact that their lived realities and pasts so often involve experiences of violence and destitution should be an indictment of modern British society, rather than of them.

Regardless of your views on UK Drill music as a genre, it is troubling that there are a number of British artists currently operating with the looming threat of police action if their lyrics refer to certain subjects. Ironically, some of the most passionate members of the right-wing ‘free speech’ brigade completely abandon their horror at the prospect of state censorship as soon as it concerns Black British musical forms. If free speech rights are so sacred, so integral to British society, why doesn’t that extend to young Black lads talking about their lived experiences as a way of documenting and overcoming traumatic events?

Sadly, the fact that this unprecedented form of artistic censorship is being directed against working-class Black people is grimly familiar. The rise of Grime in the noughties and US Hip-Hop in the nineties generated a similar media and state backlash. In such cases, the connections between music and violence are often overblown. Is anyone concerned about the social consequences of violent, gory films produced by middle-aged white men? Is the same worry extended to the murderous potential of kids who spend hours playing violent video games?

Again, there is no denying that UK Drill has been exploited for violent means. What worries me is the extent to which state censorship of this musical form will increase social alienation for young people growing up with Drill as an important cultural product. Rather than stifling the creativity of those who use music to escape poverty and violence, the UK government and Police force should be addressing the root causes of the problems MCs are documenting in their tracks. 11 years of austerity have desecrated public and social services in the UK’s most deprived communities and cut off society’s most at-risk groups. It’s hardly surprising that some individuals begin to see crime as their only means of survival.

Rather than ramping up their efforts to censor the artistry of Drill rappers, the state must exhibit a more substantial degree of pragmatism and empathy for vulnerable members of our intensely unequal, divided society. After all, there is no evidence to suggest that artistic censorship actually has any positive impact on reducing violent crime. In 2021, Roland Barthes’ philosophical puzzle remains  – can we separate the art from the artist? When it comes to Drill, the answer is complex. But perhaps, before dismissing and censoring the creativity of rappers who primarily seek to document and transcend their environments, we should exercise a greater effort to understand the causes and roots of violent conflict.

Words by Fred Garratt-Stanley

Support The Indiependent

We’re trying to raise £200 a month to help cover our operational costs. This includes our ‘Writer of the Month’ awards, where we recognise the amazing work produced by our contributor team. If you’ve enjoyed reading our site, we’d really appreciate it if you could donate to The Indiependent. Whether you can give £1 or £10, you’d be making a huge difference to our small team.