Slashdot Mirror
Police Shut Down Anti-Violence Fundraiser Over Rapper's Hologram
An anonymous reader writes: A Chicago rapper by the name of Chief Keef has been making headlines recently after the city launched a campaign to deny his performance at an anti-violence event. The event was organized to raise funds for victims of recent Chicago murders in which another rapper was slain. Keef is currently wanted on warrants in the region but is living on the East Coast. He was expected to perform via a live stream projection. While Chicago officials worked to deny his performance from occurring in the city, promoters vowed that he would still perform.
A recent concert called Craze Fest was just held at the Wolf Lake Pavilion in Hammond, Indiana. The Pavilion is part of a public park. The city of Hammond refused to let promoters hold the event unless they agreed that Chief Keef would not be allowed to perform. Instead, the promoters setup a live stream projection of the rapper and showed it at the end of the concert. Once the Hologram of Keef began performing, police rushed in and began shutting down the event. This raises some interesting questions about free speech and the role of technology in it. Here's a local news article, and some brief cellphone footage of the event.
A recent concert called Craze Fest was just held at the Wolf Lake Pavilion in Hammond, Indiana. The Pavilion is part of a public park. The city of Hammond refused to let promoters hold the event unless they agreed that Chief Keef would not be allowed to perform. Instead, the promoters setup a live stream projection of the rapper and showed it at the end of the concert. Once the Hologram of Keef began performing, police rushed in and began shutting down the event. This raises some interesting questions about free speech and the role of technology in it. Here's a local news article, and some brief cellphone footage of the event.
This doesn't raise any questions about freedom of speech. This demonstrates that freedom of speech doesn't exist.
Perhaps someone who knows some law could explain under what authority the mayor or the cops can shut down a concert because they don't like one of the performers? Is this going to be the new normal? They'll shut down the next one because it "promotes terrorism"?
Next album title.
Had he physically appeared, they could have arrested him as the warrants are independent of free speech. But you don't get to censor speech, even by people with warrants. Parks count as public fora with respect to speech.
And as for "they agreed he would not perform" giving them leverage, that may work over the warrant issue, but as he did not physically appear, it amounts to needing to get pre-clearance from government on what you are going to speak about in a public forum, which is a no no. Good luck with that at the lawsuit trial.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
They spent 3 hours trying to pepper spray, Taser, tackle, and finally shoot the hologram.
The police chief is requesting an increase in the budget for the purchase of weapons to deal with holograms.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
In a world where we have "free speech zones" miles from events, and jack booted thugs called police that are too much of pussies to deal with crime instead of being assholes you dont get free speech.
Unless you are rich enough to cause the police problems. Then you can have some.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If they shut down a hologram, what makes that different from a TV stations showing a live performance?
Charities work, except when they're illegal.
The victim the concert was fundraising for was the child of another member of Keef's gang, who was killed as an opposing gang fled after shooting and killing Keef's crewman Cato. The city were very concerned the concert would turn into a gang shoot-out. This isn't about censorship of violent lyrics (although it's a "poster child" case), it's about preventing the imminent incitement of violence. Judge the situation as you will, just take into account it wasn't lyrical censorship.
When a rapper is killed, Crime Stoppers should send the killer some cash.
How ironic. You invite a known instigator of violence to an anti-violence concert.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I'm interested in the technical details of this. I don't see any hologram in the video. But, it's being mentioned in such an offhand way, like hologram performances are commonplace.
Soulless performance by both the cops and the artist.
But you can't really blame a hologram for not having a soul!
A warrant in Chicago is valid anywhere in the US. Why didn't the cops arrest the rapper where he was performing on the East Coast? That would have been an appropriate move. Shutting down a concert because he's in it is not.
Because absolutely nothing will do more for a rapper's reputation and music sales than to have some idiot police chief stop a performance because he didn't like the lyrics that the rapper had used PREVIOUSLY.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This looks like just a 2D video. Maybe it was projected on a partially-transparent screen (I can't tell from the video), but I seriously doubt they were using voxels instead of pixels.
The big news here isn't free speech or police abuse, but the hologram. I didn't know we had Star Wars technology yet. How does it work?
In case anyone was wondering what this rapper, Chief Keef, is wanted for? He failed to show up for a pretrial hearing for a DUI charge (because he was working in California?).
While a DUI charge is serious and failing to show up for a court date is too, this does seem like an overreaction from the city and the police.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
hes missed 4-5 performances in the last 3 years and has been sued by multiple people, including a promotions group, for missing them. He was once booked to perform in London England, and mysteriously never showed up. Clearly the 3d holography software was more a more punctual choice.
imo Keef is targeted by nearly every barney fife in america because hes guilty of 'contempt of cop.' his violations include failing to notify for change of address during parole, and making a video at a gun range. The state keeps him floating in and out of a revolving prison door largely for parole violations like testing positive for marijuana, marijuana DUI's, and general hooligan behavior. Hes no Bieber, so his 110mph speeding charge sent him to jail as well.
Good people go to bed earlier.
They have two choices, either arrest him, or let him perform. Nothing in between. Its not like he's in a non-extradition country or something, he's in the US all it would take is a phone call to the local PD and some plane/train tickets. If they don't want to exercise their arrest warrant privileges then constitutional right of free speech overrides.
It's too many laws. One doesn't fit, they'll find another.
And once they find one that fits well enough, than anything goes because resistance to enforcement of a law usually brings the full force of the law with it.
Rap has gone from a somewhat interesting and catchy musical style practiced by MC Hammer to a profanity and misogyny laced incitement to violence.
I suspect that rap was invented by the White Supremacists because it and the "Hip Hop" culture are more responsible for the stigmatization and failure of Black Youth than any amount of KKK rallies.
Can anyone really see someone showing up for an interview an anyplace from a 7-11 to Google, speaking and acting like someone from that "culture"?
"no wat I sayn?"
Allow his hologram to appear at the event and give his little performance then garnish his wages from the venue. If he wants to complain he can drive his happy ass to Chicago, walk into any courthouse and fill out the required forms. That way you make the issue clear, it's not about free speech or censorship; it's about the suspension of his right to generate revenue in a city where he is a wanted criminal. That way the people get the concert they paid for, the venue keeps its reputation and none of their equipment gets smashed and the only person who loses is the degenerate that is constantly causing trouble for the city. But instead we have this crap where they drag everyone involved into the situation and create a ton of extra work for themselves. What the heck? It's like they're not lazy enough to run a city properly.
Would the police also have shut them down if they started playing clips of Roman Polanski (wanted in the US for raping a 13 year old girl) movies?
If that was prohibited in the terms for the permit then yes. Not arguing if that is right or wrong but they could probably legally do it as long as they weren't stupidly clumsy about the whole thing.
Why should the state be allowed to put such restrictions on permits???
To ensure that the performance doesn't become a public nuisance or a danger to others. The first amendment rights of the people seeking the permit are important but they are not the only rights in play here. The people who live in that local community also have rights. Its not unreasonable to require the organizers to provide reasonable assurances that the activity will be safe, that they will have adequate security, adequate parking or other infrastructure, that it will be peaceful, that it will not disturb the local residents unnecessarily, that public health issues (sanitation, food, water, etc) are addressed, etc. Free speech is a super important right but you don't get the right to endanger others in the process and it isn't the only right involved. So we often require permits for public performances and demonstration (a kind of performance) when they involved public property. The permitting process is typically fairly reasonable and we have courts for when it becomes unreasonable.
This is the state restricting speech on public property.
And? The Supreme Court has long upheld reasonable restrictions on speech in public places. Even big civil rights marches have needed to show that they are not endangering others. They shouldn't be denied because they don't like the message but there are a host of practical consideration and other rights that need to be seriously dealt with.
Perhaps the police could put a picture of a jail next to the hologram of Chief Keef. That's consistent with the logic being used by police.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Moderation -1
40% Flamebait
30% Troll
30% Insightful
It's flamebaiting to point out privilege? It's trolling to point out privilege? I can see that the white males are getting all the modpoints today.
FWIW I consider myself to be a "white hispanic" ... HTH you make more knee-jerk reactions, kids
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Note that this sort of permit/license is justified under the theory that it requires extra city services to do this sort of thing - more cops, more street cleanup, etc.
It's more than that. If you hold an event there are issues of public safety, sanitation, noise and other public nuisances, civil rights of other parties, other groups that may want the same space at the same time. There are practical issues of how to hold a safe and peaceful event and there are civil rights issues for the local residents and their expression of free speech and other rights. As a simple made up example, if a group decided to hold a loud gathering outside my home at 3 in the morning, shouldn't I have some say in the matter if the issue could be reasonably addressed at another time?
They shouldn't deny the permit on the grounds of the message but the free speech rights of the permit seeker is rarely the only consideration. If someone wanted to hold a million man march in the small town I live in the town would probably deny it because it is too small to hold such an event even if they wanted to. There simply isn't adequate infrastructure to make it happen safely and peacefully and there would be serious public safety problems which would likely supersede any free speech issues in play.
Free speech involves two elements. One is the right to speak. The other element which is less understood is the right to hear the speech. The action was dead wrong as the artist involved could have been shown in a past performance before he was a fugitive and even if a fugitive he has not been convicted of a crime unless he broke parole or escaped from jail. I can see no way to ban a performance without being able to prove that the performance had been made while a convicted criminal was on the run and maybe not even then. The second part of the problem is the lousy judgement of the city in taking this action. A concert against violence,one would think, would receive huge support from any city. It makes the city look like a fool which should be against public policy. It is the equivalent of the city sponsoring a campaign for more illegal violence.
Miss it.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
As much as I dislike Chief Keef and his musical stylings *cough*, I have to side with him on this one. Should an arrest warrant also restrict a person's free speech, or justify police intervention? I have to think it should not, regardless of how I feel about the person.
If we don't protect the speech we don't like, then it's not "free speech" as I understand it. The fact is that we must protect the kind of speech we personally detest if it's to mean anything at all.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
for improper use of the word "hologram". This was not a hologram, which is a true 3D image created by the diffraction and interference of light. This was an image projected on an angled piece of glass/plastic.
If you want to call *this* a hologram, then we had better be ready to say that humanity has had hologram technology since 1862.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost
If I were sitting on the SCOUTS I would have to question even those restrictions. The first amendment provides for the right of peaceful assembly, not the right of peaceful assembly when adequate sanitation as defined by a government agency happens to be in place.
There is nothing mutually exclusive between assembling peacefully and ensuring an event is adequately planned to ensure the safety and rights of all. When that sanitation is paid for by the local community then the local community gets a say in the matter. When large events are held there invariably is a need for extra security - even at ostensibly peaceful events not everyone behaves themselves. When you have large groups of people the physical reality of the situation is that people need to eat, drink and poop and there needs to be adequate medical care available. If that is not addressed then you get serious public health problems up to and including people dying. Assembling peacefully does not mean you get to do whatever you want, wherever you want and whenever you want without any planning or consideration of the consequences of your actions no matter how peaceful you are.
I find it hard to accept the government can make a credible claim that an anti-violence fundraiser isn't a peaceful assembly, until there is probably cause to expect its anything else the government should have NO RIGHT to interfere irrespective of the number of porta-cans present.
Insisting that the event be sufficiently organized to ensure the safety of the attendees and the community and the rights of all are respected is hardly unreasonable and frankly is well enshrined in our laws. You are making the mistake of presuming the first amendment rights of those attending the event are the only rights in play. They aren't.
If the Federal government tried the things local government can get away with, there would be mass revolution. In many places you can have a lien put against your property because your lawn was too high and you didn't pay the fines. Imagine if the Federal government tried that.
Local government can pretty much shut any event down based on zoning, noise ordinances, permits, incorrect paperwork, or any other number of technicalities. There's really no such thing as free speech when it comes to the city level of government. Maybe in principle, but in practice they have so many tools to shut you up it's sheer luck if you ever get your message out.
Doesn't look like any question were raised here. The constitutional violation appear obvious.
The event is an obvious public forum, because lots of people are expressing themselves there.
Only compelling governmental reasons can allow the restriction of speech in a public forum and any such restriction will be looked at by the courts with "strict scrutiny."
Having a warrant outstanding is a stupid reason to shut someone off from public speech.
This so obviously bad, either (a) the City's lawyer is an absolute moron (unlikely); (b) the Cops ignored their lawyer's advice telling them that shutting down this speech would be wrong (evil); or (c) the Cops didn't bother to consult with their lawyer and just shut down a speech because they wanted to (unlikely).
This could easily become lawsuit.
They keep the hologram tech for Hatsune Miku. They don't need or want the insanely violent, criminal, sexually uncontrollable, pidgin-speaking IQ 70 negro larger than life. Considering athletics is almost entirely black nowadays, Tokyo shouldn't have applied for the 2020 Summer Olympics just to see their beautiful and orderly country ruined.
It doesn't matter what the terms of the permit are; those terms are illegal.
That is for a court of law to decide. You may be right but that has not yet been decided to my knowledge.
The government may only enact reasonable content-neutral restrictions on speech. Saying that a specific person cannot perform or a specific viewpoint cannot be expressed runs afoul of well-established First Amendment case law.
That is not remotely true. I refer you to FCC v Pacifica Foundation, better known as the case over George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words broadcast which was upheld by the Supreme Court and restricts viewpoints based on their content.
Chief Keef is thumbing his nose at authority. This can not be tolerated.
I wonder whether anyone has been considering the need for the law to SOMEHOW cope with proxies like this.
If you perform LIVE via projection, specific to a particular place (rather than through a disconnected non-live broadcast to a wider audience), doesn't that allow the laws of the venue extend to the transmitting site?
At some point this question will need to be worked out before we have robotic proxies HERE operated by people outside the locality who are in contempt of the local law.
Yeah, yeah, this is weird.
It's a Pepper's Ghost of (probably) a projection. Very much 2D.
Is it? Do you have any reason to think this?
"Pepper's Ghost" is a way to make a (real) object seem to appear and disappear. It has nothing to do with projected images.
I don't see any reason why somebody would want to do that illusion with a projection. It would allow you to make the a projected image appear and disappear... but you can to that by just turning the projector on and off.
Insisting that the event be sufficiently organized to ensure the safety of the attendees and the community and the rights of all are respected is hardly unreasonable and frankly is well enshrined in our laws. You are making the mistake of presuming the first amendment rights of those attending the event are the only rights in play. They aren't.
How is insisting that Chief Keef couldn't appear, even by hologram, a reasonable restriction to assure the safety of the attendees or protect any competing rights?
Chicago resident here and familiar with Chief Keef.
There a couple of things this article is leaving out. First, he is a **very bad dude** And many of his fans are very violent people. For example, the city helped him put on a free show here a few years back, and as the concert let out the countless gang bangers in attendance started going bezerk and attacking people, cars, property, etc in the area. This never received much coverage in the media (I think the PC term is a "flash mob" happened after the concert).
He's also anything but "anti-violence". He's pointed a gun at police officers and been convicted of multiple weapons charges. He openly taunts other gang members when one of theirs gets shot.
He's a legit gang member. Many of his fans are legit gang members. And this with a backdrop of Chicago.. one of the more dangerous cities in America.
I'm a huge free speech advocate, and I don't know where this one falls. But if the concert happens, there will be multiple gang members all shooting at each other. It's likely the realization of this that prompted the concert venue to uninvite him.
Interscope just didn't understand Cheef Queef's vision
How can this guy have a warrant for his arrest in one state, yet live free in another state? Aren't arrest warrants valid across the entire country?
OK-
So where does it say in the constitution (which is the supreme law of the land) that the government can even add conditions? It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution- not above it anyway. The constitution is ABOVE any other laws. Any law that says X can't interfere with the rights of the people to speak as its BELOW the constitution. No matter how reasonable you think those conditions are they are BELOW the constitution. If the government wants to protect people than its up to the government to provide the security, porta potties, etc.
This seriously sounds like an episode of southpark. Infact I could swear I saw a Southpark Episode where the Southpark Police try and fail to shoot/arrest Holographic African American rappers.
Freedom?
Never heard of it.
When that sanitation is paid for by the local community then the local community gets a say in the matter. When large events are held there invariably is a need for extra security - even at ostensibly peaceful events not everyone behaves themselves.
The local community does not pay for it. The local community gets paid for it, usually at something higher than their cost. They invariably bill the event organizer for those services. I can't point to it, but I suspect such fees have already been upheld in court. They do not confer some magical ability to censor content. Quite the opposite.
How is insisting that Chief Keef couldn't appear, even by hologram, a reasonable restriction to assure the safety of the attendees or protect any competing rights?
Bingo. Sjbe has hung his entire argument on a ridiculous idea - that playing a recording from a specific person versus a recording of some other person can compromise anything. The little emperor has no clothes.
Were any of the officials who violated the First Amendment by tying censorship requirements to "permit" people to peaceably assemble, or the criminals who illegally violated the People's rights to peaceably assemble, arrested?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
This was a commercial venture being held in a public park featuring a known criminal who has fled prosecution in the jurisdiction in question.
Local jurisdictions should and do have the authority to prevent commercial criminal enterprises from operating within their boarders. Yeah, it's a fundraiser for the gang he's involved in, arguing it's some sort of legitimate not for profit venture is bullshit, so don't even try arguing that.
Frankly, the event organizers should be fined/jailed. This incident is not about freedom of speech, it's about the crime wave in a particular community that nobody but the police end up even attempting to address.