(Tommy's Version): Connecting the Vault Tracks on "1989 (Taylor's Version)" to Legal Concepts
Although Taylor Swift has released four re-recorded versions of her past albums, none of them have generated quite as much interest as “1989 (Taylor’s Version).” When Swift announced the album on X, formerly known as Twitter, she wrote, “This is my most favorite re-record I've ever done because the 5 From The Vault tracks are so insane. I can't believe they were ever left behind.”
“From The Vault” tracks are songs that were written while Swift was making the first version of 1989 but were left off the final record.
Of course, it’s only appropriate I take a look at these five “vault” tracks and try to tie each one back to some legal concept or principle that law students and examinees need to know for the bar exam.
(Why is Swift re-recording some of her albums? The original recordings of her first six albums were owned by a record label, which is often the case. However, they were eventually sold to a private equity firm, which Swift publicly opposed. So Swift is re-recording and releasing the songs that had been sold to own her own music. In doing so, Swift is also including songs on each album that were previously unreleased (identified as “From The Vault” tracks). Each re-recorded song and album title includes a reminder that you are listening to “Taylor’s Version.”)
1. "'Slut!' (Taylor's Version) (From The Vault)"
But if I'm all dressed up (If I'm all dressed up)
They might as well be lookin' at us (Lookin' at us)
And if they call me a slut (If they call me a slut)
You know it might be worth it for once (Worth it for once)
And if I'm gonna be drunk
I might as well be drunk in love
When Swift announced “'Slut!'” as one of the bonus tracks for "1989 (Taylor’s Version)", anticipation and intrigue for the song grew. Would it be her battle cry for her fight with misogyny? Swift has become more vocal over the past few years about the slut-shaming she endured in her early career, especially during the period when she was working on "1989."
“'Slut!'” didn’t go quite that far, as journalist Clare Thorp described for the BBC:
As it was, “Slut!” turned out to be less a furious anthem and instead a woozy, tender love song in which a new affair is so magical, she's willing to deal with whatever narrative comes with it. “And if they call me a slut, you know it might be worth it for once,” she sings on the chorus. Yet, hidden along with the dream melody are some damning lines, too. The song’s most powerful lyric comes when Swift says of the liaison: “I’ll pay the price, you won’t.”
When it comes to the bar exam, think about slander per se. Defamation is a tort that encompasses false statements which harm someone’s reputation (which, ironically, is the title of Swift’s next album after "1989"). Slander refers to the spoken form of defamation (as opposed to libel, which is written or published defamation).
If the spoken defamation (e.g., slander) falls within one of four categories, then the statements are characterized as “slander per se.” These statements are so inherently damaging that the plaintiff is not required to prove actual damage to their reputation. These typically fall into four categories:
Statements that negatively reflect on a person's fitness or competence in their trade, business, or profession;
Assertions that a person has a loathsome disease, traditionally leprosy or a sexually transmitted infection;
Allegations that a person has committed a crime of moral turpitude or a serious crime; and
Claims that a woman engaged in serious sexual misconduct.
The use of the term “slut” can potentially fall into the fourth category.
Nowadays, the legal and societal views on these four “slander pe per” categories have evolved. The notion that a woman’s sexual conduct is inherently tied to her reputation is an archaic concept, reflecting historical sexism and gender bias. Modern defamation laws have moved away from these outdated categories to some extent, and the use of the word “slut,” while certainly derogatory and potentially defamatory, may not automatically be treated as “slander per se” depending on the jurisdiction.
It's important to remember that the Uniform Bar Exam does not test any state-specific laws. Examinees are expected to answer all questions according to generally accepted fundamental legal principles rather than local case or statutory law.
2. "Say Don’t Go (Taylor's Version) (From The Vault)"
(Say) Say
"(Don't) Don’t
(Go) Go"
I would stay forevеr if you
(Say) Say
"(Don't) Don't
(Go) Go"
(Say, say, say, say)
“Say Don't Go (Taylor's Version),” like many of Taylor Swift's tracks, delves into the intricate dynamics of relationships, the heartache of love that is not reciprocated, and the deep-seated desire for someone to decide to remain. The song navigates the tumultuous journey of love and the inner battle to cling to hope in the face of a foreseen end.
When it comes to the bar exam, think about consent and one’s voluntary willingness to be with another person. This idea of consent applies similarly to kidnapping and false imprisonment when it comes to Torts and Criminal Law.
If the person who was allegedly kidnapped or false imprisoned consented to the taking or going along with the defendant, then the kidnapping or imprisonment may not be considered wrongful under the law, provided that the consent was given freely, knowingly, and without coercion. Consent obtained under duress, by misrepresentation, or from someone who lacks the capacity to consent (due to age, mental incapacity, or intoxication) is not legally effective.
3. "Suburban Legends (Taylor's Version) (From The Vault)"
I didn't come here to make friends
We were born to be suburban legends
When you hold me, it holds me together
And you kiss me in a way that's gonna screw me up forever
While “Suburban Legends” seems to focus on one of Swift’s ex-lovers (as many of her songs do), the song also alludes to the singer's rise to stardom.
Swift spent her early years in a small-town community in Pennsylvania before moving to Nashville for her music career. “I was from a small town, and nobody really expects you to leave, especially before you graduate. That doesn’t happen. I actually went back a couple months ago and played a sold-out show in my hometown, and it was amazing,” she told Entertainment Weekly back in 2008. The track title suggests that Swift's journey from a small-town musician to an international superstar made her a suburban legend.
When it comes to the bar exam, Swift’s move from a small community to make it big on the national and then international stage makes me think of the distinction between community standards and national standards that are used to examine obscene speech.
The modern standard for determining obscenity is established by the Miller test, from the United States Supreme Court’s landmark case Miller v. California in 1973. The Miller test has three parts:
First, whether the work appeals to the prurient interest in sex;
Second, whether the work depicts or describes sex in a patently offensive way; and
Third, whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The first two questions are examined using contemporary community standards. This means that what may be considered obscene in one community at a given time might not be considered obscene in another, or even in the same community at a different time, due to evolving standards.
However, the last question—that the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value—is not examined solely based on community standards but also requires an examination of a more uniform national reasonable person test.
4. "Now That We Don't Talk (Taylor's Version) (From The Vault)"
I called my mom, she said that it was for the best
Remind myself the more I gave, you'd want me less
I cannot be your friend, so I pay the price of what I lost
And what it cost
Now that we don't talk
The general consensus among Swifties is that “Now That We Don’t Talk” is about her year-long romantic fling with Harry Styles. The song describes the collapse of a romance and how, in the aftermath of their separation, Swift become estranged from the other person (Styles?), with no knowledge of his current life since they “don’t talk.”
When it comes to the bar exam, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution includes a provision that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” which is widely known as the right against self-incrimination. This right allows individuals to refuse to answer questions or provide information that could incriminate them during a criminal investigation or trial.
Imagine a situation where, previously, a person might have been open and communicative, perhaps sharing information freely. However, once it becomes apparent that there might be a risk of self-incrimination, they stop talking. They would no longer speak out or provide potentially incriminating statements. Just as the track’s title suggests a cessation of communication, invoking the Fifth Amendment effectively serves to halt any statements that could lead to one’s own prosecution.
5. "Is It Over Now? (Taylor's Version) (From The Vault)"
Baby, was it over when she laid down on your couch?
Was it over when he unbuttoned my blouse?
"Come here," I whispered in your ear in your dream as you passed out
Baby, was it over then?
And is it over now?
“Is It Over Now?” (yet another song “from the vault” likely about Harry Styles) examines the difficulties of letting go of a previous love. The song conveys a tone of lingering emotions and an ongoing yearning for resolution. The recurrent question—“Is it over now?”—echoes a sentiment of doubt and a craving for definitive understanding about the conclusion of the relationship.
When it comes to the bar exam, you might think of litigants saying, “Is It Over Now?” Why would they say this? Think the final judgment rule.
In Civil Procedure, the final judgment rule refers to the principle that an appellate court will only review final decisions made by the trial courts. A final decision is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. The final judgment rule is significant because it helps to clarify when a party can appeal a decision.
Of course, as with many rules, there are exceptions to the general rule. For instance, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, interlocutory orders (decisions made by the court before the final ruling) can be appealed immediately if they involve certain urgent matters, such as injunctions, that could cause irreparable harm if not immediately challenged.
Also, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a trial court may certify an interlocutory order as a final decision if it involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
Finally, the judge-made, common law "collateral order doctrine" allows certain decisions to be appealed immediately if they resolve important questions separate from the merits that would be effectively unreviewable if parties had to wait for a final judgment.
