Dr. Michał Markiewicz for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna: The Taco Hemingway Case – restrictions on artistic freedom

An article by Nadia Senkowska appeared in Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, in which she, along with Maciej Ślusarek and Darius Plut, comments on the “scandal” surrounding Taco Hemingway and the GIF’s censorship of his song. First of all, this is not an advertisement, so there is no basis for such a decision. Second, freedom of artistic expression and creativity should be particularly protected in such contexts.

Full statement below:

I have a major issue with restricting artistic freedom through regulatory law on the one hand, and intellectual property rights on the other. This often leads to absurd situations, such as when all trademarks are removed from film scenes, which results in the creation of scenes that do not correspond to reality. In the case in question, the basis for challenging Taco Hemingway’s actions is the regulation prohibiting the advertising of pharmaceutical products. And while a song lyric can be considered advertising—as evidenced by the practice of using music in TV commercials—in my view, there is no doubt that the use of the drug’s name in Taco Hemingway’s song was not intended as such, but rather to draw attention to a specific social issue. In particular, it was not done to increase demand for this drug (which is one of the prerequisites for advertising under pharmaceutical law). Looking at the musical genre of rap, we can conclude that it often focuses on social issues, which it not only describes but also interprets, confronts, and sometimes exaggerates to emphasize their significance. To interpret this as advertising in this case seems to be a mistake. Not to mention the further consequences of upholding the GIF’s decision. I would not want musicians, like the filmmakers in the example cited above, to be effectively censored in situations where their intention is to describe a certain reality.

The essence of art lies precisely in the ability to comment on reality, and to this end, artists must sometimes make use of trademarks or product names.

Looking to the future, I believe we should not move toward a society that regulates every aspect of life, particularly by restricting freedom of expression—especially artistic expression—while assuming a lack of any critical analysis on the part of its audience. Let us strive to create an intelligent society prepared to critically evaluate the information it receives.

As a side note, I would like to point out that the song’s lyrics absolutely do not incite or encourage the use of the mentioned drug, and the mere mention of its name should not raise concerns about the potential danger of its popularization. If interpreted differently, we are heading toward a world in which any statement about social problems could lead to the promotion of socially undesirable behaviors (e.g., drug addiction—and as we know, many songs address this issue, and no one has yet attempted to censor them).