A conversation about Tory Lanez’s “Not On Tor” event series escalated into a tense exchange among the panelists on a recent episode of the Joe Budden Podcast. Joe Budden was absent, but the discussion did not lack friction: the group largely treated the concept as a creative way for an incarcerated artist to remain connected to an audience, then split sharply over whether fans and participants should support it.

The disagreement is significant because it does not turn solely on the format of the events. “Not On Tor” has begun in New York City and is described as a series of live gatherings featuring guest performances, DJ sets and listening sessions for Lanez’s music while he is in prison. Instead, the panel’s clash centered on the moral meaning attached to that support in the context of Lanez’s case involving Megan Thee Stallion.

What the ‘Not On Tor’ format is

At its simplest, “Not On Tor” is not presented as a conventional artist tour in which the headliner travels and performs at every date. Lanez is incarcerated, so the events are structured around his recorded material and appearances by others: special guests can perform, DJs can play music and attendees can take part in a communal listening session.

That distinction matters. A listening event is an organized public experience around music rather than a live concert by the recording artist. It can still create attention, community and income around an artist’s catalog, but it does so without suggesting that the imprisoned artist is physically appearing. The source material says the panel saw creative value in Lanez making the most of his circumstances. The dispute began when the subject shifted from whether the idea could work to whether it ought to receive support.

That gap between can and should drove nearly every part of the exchange. One person can acknowledge that an event is legally permissible or commercially clever while still feeling that participation sends the wrong message. Conversely, someone who believes the underlying case was wrongly decided may see attendance or promotion as solidarity rather than a moral compromise.

Marc Lamont Hill’s distinction: rights versus endorsement

Marc Lamont Hill made the clearest separation between legal permission and personal approval. He said he supports incarcerated people being able to earn money, and he did not frame his objection as a claim that Lanez lacks the right to organize an event series or that supporters lack the right to attend.

His issue was accountability. Hill said he could not personally support Lanez’s efforts without what he regarded as genuine acknowledgment of responsibility for the crime. That is a moral position, not an attempt to resolve the business mechanics of the tour. It also leaves room for a principle often blurred in public arguments: a person’s ability to earn an income does not obligate every audience member, venue, collaborator or commentator to endorse the project.

Hill compared his reasoning to his opposition to R. Kelly making money before his imprisonment while allegations and criminal matters involving him were ongoing. The comparison was used to clarify his own threshold for support, rather than to claim the two cases were identical.

Related coverage includes Tory Lanez’s ‘Not On Tor’ Tour Sparks Heated Podcast Debate.

When Ish asked whether Lanez taking accountability would change Hill’s view, Hill said that it would. That response put an important condition at the center of his stance. For Hill, the barrier was not incarceration by itself, nor the abstract idea that a musician might profit from recorded work. It was support for an artist who, in Hill’s view, has not accepted responsibility.

Why the panel could not agree on the starting point

The accountability argument runs into an immediate obstacle: Lanez and his supporters continue to maintain that he is innocent and did not shoot Megan Thee Stallion. QueenzFlip pushed back on the criticism from that position, arguing that the discussion was unfair and referring to evidence he believes supports Lanez’s innocence. He also disputed aspects of the charges and convictions discussed during the exchange.

That disagreement changes the entire frame. If someone accepts the conviction and believes accountability is absent, an event built around Lanez’s music can appear to be a celebration that bypasses harm. If someone believes he was wrongly convicted, calls for his freedom and public support may be understood as advocacy. The panel was not merely debating marketing tactics; it was debating which premise should govern the moral judgment.

This is also why a seemingly straightforward question—should people attend or promote the events?—does not generate a straightforward answer. The participants were applying different standards to a deeply contested case. Hill’s position accepts the right to earn while withholding endorsement because he sees a failure of accountability. Flip’s pushback stems from his belief that Lanez is innocent. Neither position treats the tour as just another entertainment listing.

Mona’s criticism of the fan dynamic

Mona agreed with Hill’s underlying stance and broadened the critique to the nature of Lanez’s most vocal support. She argued that a particular type of man becomes intensely invested in demands for Lanez’s release or reversal, even though the events at issue occurred years ago.

Her point moved the debate beyond the artist and toward fan culture. Public support for a performer can be about the music, but it can also become an argument about identity, loyalty, distrust of institutions or a desire to defend a celebrity from criticism. Once that happens, disagreement can be read by supporters as an attack on the fans themselves, not simply as criticism of an event or performer.

Flip objected to that characterization, adding another layer to the conflict. The debate was therefore not only about whether Lanez should be supported; it was also about what motivates people who support him and whether it is fair to generalize about them.

What “accountability” means in this argument

Accountability is a broad term, and its meaning shifts depending on who is using it. In this discussion, Hill used it to mean a true acceptance of responsibility. It did not mean merely serving a sentence, keeping a project alive or maintaining a public defense. His answer to Ish indicates that acknowledgment would materially affect how he assesses support for Lanez’s work.

Supporters who believe Lanez is innocent will naturally reject that requirement, because admitting responsibility would conflict with their understanding of the case. That is the central tension: accountability is often offered as a route to ethical rehabilitation, while a continuing innocence claim makes that route impossible without abandoning the defense.

It is useful to keep several separate questions distinct:

  • Legal permission: whether an incarcerated person may continue to earn money from work or organize commercial activity.
  • Consumer choice: whether fans want to buy tickets, attend events or engage with the music.
  • Professional participation: whether DJs, guests and other contributors want their work attached to the event.
  • Moral endorsement: whether supporting the project communicates approval, forgiveness, solidarity or simply appreciation for the music.
  • Factual belief: whether a person accepts the conviction or believes Lanez’s continued claims of innocence.

The podcast discussion shows how quickly these questions get collapsed into one another. Saying that an artist has a right to make money can be misheard as enthusiastic backing. Declining to attend can be treated as an assertion about guilt. Believing a conviction should stand can be interpreted as opposition to any future artistic work. But the panelists’ disagreement demonstrates that these positions are not automatically interchangeable.

Practical implications for music events and collaborators

“Not On Tor” illustrates how a music-centered live event can become the site of a larger cultural argument. Promoters and guests are not only considering programming—DJ sets, music selection and audience demand—but also the reputational meaning of their association. Fans, meanwhile, may be deciding whether attendance is simply a musical outing or a public statement.

There is no single response embedded in the panel’s argument. Hill explicitly recognized Lanez’s and his fans’ rights while drawing his own line against support. Mona focused on the social dynamics of particularly forceful supporters. Flip argued that the conversation cannot be fair if it overlooks what he sees as evidence of innocence. The intensity came from the fact that every participant was effectively answering a different first question.

For audiences, clarity is likely more useful than pretending the context does not exist. An event promoted around an incarcerated artist may be commercially viable and creatively structured, yet still invite scrutiny over the case, its messaging and the people who appear. Supporters can state why they attend; critics can explain why they abstain; neither action changes the reality that the music is being received in a highly charged context.

Questions about who benefits when music circulates also extend well beyond live events. For a separate example of how artists can publicly contest the terms surrounding their work and compensation, see this report on Digital Nas’s claims about publishing and royalties. That is a different issue, but it underscores that music’s public life is frequently tied to disputes over money, ownership and the obligations audiences attach to participation.

A debate with no shared baseline

The heated discussion ultimately reflects why Lanez remains such a polarizing figure in hip-hop. The “Not On Tor” series may be a novel way to stage music-focused gatherings while its central artist is imprisoned. Yet the idea cannot be evaluated in a vacuum for people who view the underlying case as inseparable from the event.

Hill’s argument was that incarcerated people can earn money, but that he cannot support Lanez without accountability. Mona agreed and questioned the intensity and character of certain public defenses. Flip rejected the premise, maintained Lanez’s innocence and challenged the fairness of the discussion. With those core assumptions in conflict, a tense argument was less an unexpected detour than the likely result of taking the tour seriously as more than a listening session.