Michigan judge Deborah Servitto 在宣判阿姆被兒時霸凌者 DeAngelo Bailey 告訴案時，用 rap 寫判詞：
Mr. Bailey complains that his rep is trash
So he’s seeking compensation in the form of cash.
Bailey thinks he’s entitled to some monetary gain
Because Eminem used his name in vain.
Eminem says Bailey used to throw him around
Beat him up in the john, shoved his face in the ground.
Eminem contends that his rap is protected
By the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Eminem maintains that the story is true
And that Bailey beat him black and blue.
In the alternative he states that the story is phony
And a reasonable person would think it’s baloney.
The court must always balance the rights
Of a defendant and one placed in a false light.
If the plaintiff presents no question of fact
To dismiss is the only acceptable act.
If the language used is anything but pleasin’
It must be highly objectionable to a person of reason.
Even if objectionable and causing offense
Self-help is the first line of defense.
Yet when Bailey actually spoke to the press what do you think he didn’t address?
Those false-light charges that so disturbed
Prompted from Bailey not a single word.
So highly objectionable, it could not be – Bailey was happy to hear his name on a CD.
Bailey also admitted he was a bully in youth
Which makes what Marshall said substantial truth.
This doctrine is a defense well known And renders Bailey’s case substantially blown.
The lyrics are stories no one would take as fact
They’re an exaggeration of a childish act.
Any reasonable person could clearly see
That the lyrics could only be hyperbole.
It is therefore this court’s ultimate position
That Eminem is entitled to summary disposition.