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"?
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.
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.
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.
No, it is prior restraint on a known fugitive. If he wants to violate and then evade the law, as far as I'm concerned he's just another version of an illegal - doesn't have the brass to turn himself in and face the consequences of being a citizen of this country. If he can't do that, then he doesn't deserve freedom of speech, either. There's nothing in the Constitution that provides for freedom to ignore the law without consequences. You know why he's evading the law? He got a DUI over a year ago. He pleaded guilty but has repeatedly failed to show up to court for his hearing. Now he's made himself a fugitive. He can have free speech after his day in court.
It amazes me how many rappers are gang-bangers first, and "musicians" second.
Your amazement is a sign of privilege.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's a Pepper's Ghost of (probably) a projection. Very much 2D.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
You don't lose your right to free speech - even when convicted and imprisoned. Nice try.
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.
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...
Felons don't lose *all* their rights: they might lose *some* rights but free speech is not among them. This is even true if you break a bail bond contract: you will waive certain constitutional rights as consequence, but free speech is not among them.