As he is on supervised release from a prison sentence, he does not currently have the full set of constitutional rights. The government can place nearly arbitrary restrictions on his life until his sentence is complete. If he disagrees with the restrictions, he is free to instead return to prison to finish his sentence behind bars. Or he can agree with the restrictions for the ~3 years he has left on his sentence and afterwards be free of them.

To be clear, I do not necessarily agree with any of this, or think it's a good idea, but it is all settled law. Despite what it sounds like, this is not a violation of his constitutional rights, any more than preventing him from recording songs in prison is.

Free speech isn't universal, there are numerous well known exclusions [0]. The title of the article, while factually correct, is in my opinion pretty misleading. A more accurate description of events is that the artist is on supervised release from prison and this is one of the terms of his release plan, because it's strongly related to how he ended up in prison to begin with.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

From just the first paragraph, it reads like they aren't trying to approve the release of those songs -- which they wouldn't have the authority to do. They are monitoring his activities as a condition of his parole, which is pretty routine. In this case they're putting forward the argument that he's intent on actively promoting violence with his music, and they are only willing to release him on parole if he curtails that behavior.

I don't know this rapper's music, but this line of reasoning honestly doesn't seem out of the ordinary.

The ACLU has changed - these days they’re more about letting their staff perform their personal political activism using their donors’ money. They stopped being principled about free speech years ago. FIRE is who fights for free speech now.

See this article for more: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...

He's on parole from a felony conviction, so the rules don't apply in quite the same way. I think, legally, he's still in the custody of the government, which is exactly why he has a parole officer to supervise him. And it's a well-established precedent that felons can lose constitutional rights - the examples that come to mind are felons' voting and gun rights, and sex offenders' freedom of movement.

If he doesn't like it he can go back to jail and not use the supervised prison release program, and release all the music-glorifying-murder he wants.

I believe FIRE is on it.

I agree, but this isn't any different than any of the other violations judges have been committing for decades.