My understanding is that the 1st amendment applies up to the point where a person makes a specific, realistic threat. This hardly seems like a realistic threat -- it is a stretch to even call these lyrics a threat -- and I am having trouble seeing where he made reference to any specific target for this supposed attack. I see typical outrageous rap lyrics here, nothing worth taking serious as either a threat or a music.

By this standard, nearly every rapper from the last 30 years should be in prison on terrorist charges.

As far as I can tell all he's threatening to do is be a really famous rapper, so famous that the Boston Marathon bombings are second-page news in comparison? Are you claiming that his music is so bad that this is some kind of imminent threat? Please explain what line he's crossing and why you think that line has any legal or moral relevance.

people don't normally get brought up on murder charges for rapping, no matter how poorly.

Where is this line exactly? None of that sounds like crossing "the line" to me at all.

Worth clicking through for the hilarious "$89 gangster" pic alone. That's not even enough for a memory upgrade at the Apple Store behind him.

That's cool you guys are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you really want to defend the first amendment, look into Bradley Manning & John Kiriakou.

The unwillingness to defend speech that you do not like renders the first amendment pointless.