A Colombian high court has issued a ruling concerning the song "+57," a collaboration between J Balvin and Karol G. The court determined that the song's lyrics violated the rights of children due to their perceived sexualization of minors.
The 14-page ruling mandates that Karol G, J Balvin, and other artists involved in the song's creation refrain from releasing music that infringes upon the rights of children and adolescents. The court emphasized that sexualizing minors reduces them to objects of desire and exposes them to developmental risks.
Upon its release in November, "+57" generated controversy in Colombia, prompting immediate demands for its removal from child rights organizations. The song also received negative reviews from music critics.
The song, named after Colombia’s telephone country code, depicts a young woman partying despite having a partner. The lyrics describe her as having been a "hot mama" from a young age and entering a disco to drink shots.
Following the criticism, Karol G, whose real name is Carolina Giraldo, issued an apology on her Instagram account, stating that the lyrics had been "taken out of context" while acknowledging a need for personal growth. J Balvin, whose real name is Jose Alvaro Osorio, also issued an apology.
In response to the criticism, a revised version of "+57" was released on YouTube, altering the lyrics to describe the woman as having been a "hot mama" from the age of 18.
The song was recorded in Medellin, Karol G's hometown. The city has gained fame for producing several prominent reggaeton singers. Medellin has also faced challenges in protecting minors from sexual predators.
8 Comments
Habibi
Finally, someone is holding artists accountable for their lyrics. Children deserve protection.
Muchacho
Karol G and J Balvin apologized; isn't that enough? This is just an example of cancel culture gone too far.
Rotfront
Next, they’ll be telling us what movies we can watch. This is the slippery slope of censorship!
Matzomaster
If you don’t like the lyrics, don’t listen! Why ruin it for everyone else?
Karamba
It's about time that artists realized the consequences of their words; this ruling sets a precedent.
Muchacho
The song sparked conversation; isn’t that what art is for? This is just stifling creativity.
Bella Ciao
This ruling is an overreach! Artists should be free to express themselves without censorship.
Coccinella
So the court thinks they can dictate what musicians can or cannot say? Where does this end?