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.

Comments

Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't raise any questions about freedom of speech. This demonstrates that freedom of speech doesn't exist.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[fustakrakich]

And yours is simply non-responsive to the issue. The GP is correct. This event proves beyond any doubt there is no free speech.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If this rapper wants to speak in Chicago, why doesn't he just go there in person?

Oh, that's right. He's a criminal, a fugitive and a deadbeat dad with multiple warrants out on him. Boo-hoo, how unfair that he's not being allowed to promote himself on city property.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[kheldan]

A brief review and analysis of your commenting history reveals that you are, indeed, likely a 'neckbeard', but that's besides the point: you're just another one of those jackasses that likes to argue for no reason other than arguing, and insulting people is just a means to an end for you. Please shut up and go away, the Internet is shitty enough without more and more of you making it shittier.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[fustakrakich]

If speech can be restricted, there is no free speech. It's a generic thing. Live with it!

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that restricts freedom of speech or the right to assemble only to those individuals of upstanding character, or denies these rights to individuals exhibiting some moral turpitude.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[sumdumass]

You are correct.

There is also nothing in the constitution that says any entity must allow you to use their property at the exclusion of others in order to express your speech. That's what this is. They want to have a concert on public grounds that will in essence restrict other from freely using the same said grounds and the city said no if a wanted criminal and fugitive from law would be a party of it.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[Dog-Cow]

He was free to spout off in whatever location he found himself. The Constitution doesn't promise to provide a platform, which is what the organizers requested when they applied for a permit.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[cdrudge]

I didn't realize that the First Amendment had an exception that forfeits your right if you have a warrant for your arrest.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[fustakrakich]

You make no sense. The permit cannot legally regulate speech. But the law? PFFT! Might makes right!

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[lgw]

If the government imposes content-based restrictions on speech as a condition of issuing a permit, that's unambiguous government censorship.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[lgw]

If the government imposes content-based restrictions on speech as a condition of issuing a permit, that's unambiguous government censorship. The exceptions in the US are few and narrow, and don't seem to apply here.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[Oligonicella]

What *content* was disallowed?

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[worldthinker]

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. This person still has free speech rights as he is not (yet) a prisoner or even arrested. Just as Edward Snowden regularly interacts with conferences via telepresence so too should anyone else be extended that right.

If Chicago knows where he is (Slashdot seems to think they know where he lives) then they can issue a warrant and request extradition.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[Grishnakh]

If he's that bad, then why is he allowed to walk free? And why is there an arrest warrant out that's only valid in one place? Nationwide arrest warrants are not uncommon.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[david_thornley]

No. There's also nothing in the Constitution that prevents the police from arresting you if there's outstanding warrants on you, and you tell them where you'll be when.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[Ralph Wiggam]

If the government imposes content-based restrictions on speech as a condition of issuing a permit, that's unambiguous government censorship.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that that's illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[Areyoukiddingme]

What *content* was disallowed?

The streaming video of some guy chanting. That's so unambiguously content that the dispute would be hilarious if it wasn't so Orwellian.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[Vitriol Angst]

"the constitution that says any entity must allow you to use their property at the exclusion of others in order to express your speech" -- that is true about THEIR property, but this is the PUBLIC's property, and your use of the term "exclusion" means that other people can't use the park on another day. Every gathering is a temporary exclusion -- so by this logic NOBODY could have any event, of any kind, in a public park. Since this events obviously take place -- your point is moot. They could have a Klan rally -- they wouldn't need to exclude me because this white boy wouldn't want to hang with those dudes.

It's a public park. It's not a private institution - so it is CLEARLY in the realm of public expression. Even for fascist, racist, fans of Ted Nugent who really, really want to shoot bears.

The criminal status of an individual should have no bearing here. Personally, I believe everyone should be REQUIRED to vote, and that a felony conviction should not end the right to vote -- because it would be too easy to arrest everyone of a certain ethnic group to marginalize their vote ... which I think has been done to communities of a certain hue. Especially where we repealed Jim Crowe laws and they immediately started putting up hindrances to voting -- even after they PROMISED that they wouldn't be making barriers to voting.

So the PROMISE that this is about public safety, and that they REALLY CARE about not giving a mic to criminals, means that Oliver North has to give back all of his air time -- well, if he were a rapper I mean.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[physicsphairy]

There is also nothing in the constitution that says any entity must allow you to use their property at the exclusion of others in order to express your speech.

Correct. Only a government entity (such as the city) must allow you equal access to their public resources (such as this park) without using forceful intervention (such as sending in police) to suppress it.

the city said no if a wanted criminal and fugitive from law would be a party of it.

Free speech is about the speech, not the person speaking. Otherwise we should not have any problem, e.g., banning Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. After all, Marx is dead -- and was never a citizen -- so surely his right to free speech would not be infringed by the ban.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[zugmeister]

But there is no particular right to teleprescence/teleconferencing or broadcasting

Nitpicking. Ever hear of free speech zones? You're "allowed" to exercise your free speech as many miles away from the venue in question as they feel like putting you. In this case they couldn't move him elsewhere so they forcibly turned him off. It equates to exactly the same thing.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[zugmeister]

The Constitution doesn't promise to provide a platform...

Red herring. You are correct but you'll note nobody was asking the government to "provide a platform". The permit was members of the public calling dibs on using a public place for this show. When someone is exercising their right to free speech in a public place and they are unambiguously stopped by armed government representatives for no clear reason, some people would consider this censorship.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[EndlessNameless]

You're using "content-based" in a very loose and likely equivocal fashion.

The municipal authorities gave no indication they were concerned with the ideas he was expressing (which would make this a clear case of censorship).

Their statement was that a person with outstanding warrants cannot participate in a public event. I strongly suspect the city supports any and all sincere anti-violence messages like the ones this event promoted---but it simply will not issue a permit for an event involving a fugitive, regardless of other factors.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[lgw]

Refusing to allow a specific speaker is pure content-based censorship. You could argue that allowing a wanted fugitive to appear in person was a public safety issue, not content-based, but of course that's not what happened here.

Remember, the government usually has some wonderful-sounding reason for censorship - their stated intentions count for nothing, it's the result of the action that matters.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[sumdumass]

There is no grasping at all here. If they permit you to hold an event in a park, i am not free to have a touch football game at that time in that same space where i could otherwise.

The line is clearly drawn at a fugitive speaking. A Polanski film wouldn't be the same unless it was Polanski himself making a speech. His music played by either recording or cover band would be the same.

What is at play here is whether or not government has the right to restrict fugitives from special uses of public property. Seeing how they can suspend a fugitive's license, It is clear that they can.

Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech?

[cdrudge]

Criminals, incarcerated or released, do lose some liberties. However they do no automatically lose all 1st Amendment rights. The Supreme Court case Turner v. Safley created the "Turner Standard" that asks "whether a prison regulation that impinges on inmates' constitutional rights is 'reasonably related' to legitimate penological interests."

For instance, prisoners are generally allowed to practice their choice religion, send as well as receive communications from the outside world, or seek redress of grievances from the government. Prisons may limit some aspects of these as they fall under penological interests such as maintaining order and security.

In Chief Keef case, yeah, he looks to be generally to be a piece of filth. However he's currently not convicted of a crime that he has not served his sentence for. Being a piece of filth also doesn't revoke your constitutional rights.

Under what authority?

[jodido]

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"?

Re:Under what authority?

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, you need a permit to use the park. Their permit said that they would not have this wanted fugitive perform. They violated the terms of their permit, so were shut down. This is pretty straightforward and they had to know this would happen - they probably wanted the publicity.

Re:Under what authority?

[gstoddart]

Honestly, these days the law seems to be "whatever the fuck the police say it is until a court tells them otherwise".

They don't care what is legal. They don't care what is Constitutional. They seem to believe they have limitless magical powers unconstrained by reality.

My only conclusion it is time to stop treating the cops as the ones who know and enforce the law. The cops enforce the law selectively, incorrectly, or in ways they know to be blatantly false.

From demanding you stop recording them or delete images, to charging you with resisting arrest when you weren't being arrested in the first place ... the police seem to neither know nor care what the fucking law says.

Which means all of them need to be wearing body cameras at all times, and much more aggressively charged when they break the law. Enough with this the police are above the law and can make it up as they go.

Start putting more of them in prison with the rest of the crooks, and maybe we'll see change.

But the last decade or so has pretty much demonstrated they simply do not adhere to the law. Either by committing perjury with "parallel construction" , or by hiding unconstitutional wiretaps with devices they won't admit to using ... the trend has been for police to stop giving a damn about the law.

Which means it's time we stopped giving them the benefit of the doubt of being honest players. Increasingly, they're anything but.

And since it's impossible to separate the good from the bad, and they won't do it themselves, it's time to treat them as if they all have a higher burden of proof for their actions.

None of this "because we said so shit", because that usually gets proven false when the video comes out.

Re:Under what authority?

[pla]

Their permit said that they would not have this wanted fugitive perform. They violated the terms of their permit, so were shut down. This is pretty straightforward and they had to know this would happen - they probably wanted the publicity.

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?

Sure, they can ban him from appearing. But "straightfoward", for effectively playing a movie by someone with an opinion they don't want heard? Yeah, I would call that straightforward - A straightforward violation of the first amendment.

Re:Under what authority?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Cities generally require permits or licenses for things like concerts. Which means they can legally prevent a concert from occurring, just by refusing to issue the permit/license.

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.

Re:Under what authority?

[tranquilidad]

They can't deny a permit based on the content of the speech.

Here's an excellent analysis and explanation by Eugene Volokh.

Re:Under what authority?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Yes. They could arrest him immediately on the warrants, which is separate. But as he did not physically appear, it amounts to needing pre-clearance from government, on content, to speak in a public forum, which a park is.

And that is an easy win for the First Amendment. They should get nailed in a lawsuit.

Re:Under what authority?

[fortfive]

Under the law, no one may prevent speech "because they don't like one of the performers." In practice, though, there are many legal reasons to regulate the "time, place and manner" of "free" speech. I don't know for certain, but I suspect some variation on "preventing criminal activity" qualifies.

Remember, legal does not mean "just" or "good for society" or "morally righteous." It does, however, mean legal.

Re:Under what authority?

[sribe]

In this case, you need a permit to use the park. Their permit said that they would not have this wanted fugitive perform. They violated the terms of their permit, so were shut down. This is pretty straightforward and they had to know this would happen - they probably wanted the publicity.

The restrictions in the permit were blatantly unconstitutional, therefore impermissable and unenforceable under US law. The city just set themselves up to be on the losing end of a lawsuit, if the promoter so chooses. If you don't believe, try washingtonpost.com and read the article and analysis. This is not a theoretical violation; the case law is well-settled, with the courts consistently banning these kinds of content-based restrictions on use of public space.

Re:Under what authority?

[TheCarp]

The thing is...they can put whatever restrictions they want, and you can then either put up with it, or go to court over it, spend lots of money on lawyers. If you win, all you get is to exercise your rights, either way you pay out the big money; out of pocket.

Then, should you want another event, expect to be denied or offered the same terms and to AGAIN need to go to court over it, and pay out big bucks to win again.

Mass Cann here in Boston had this problem year after year. The city would deny their permit, they would sue, they would win, next year, same thing.

So effectively, there is a massive unapproved tax on events the city officials don't like.

Re:Under what authority?

[Penguinisto]

My only conclusion it is time to stop treating the cops as the ones who know and enforce the law.

Actually, most folks are told part of that by lawyers, first and foremost. The police are not there to interpret laws, and most are not fully aware of them all. But then, that has never been their job. The police only exist for one reason: public safety. Their one job is to keep order and peace, and to forcibly detain those who violate said order and peace. That's it. So they do the enforcement part, but not the knowledge part of it.

It is the job of prosecutors, judges, and juries to know the law - the prosecutors to discern and prioritize who broke what laws, a judge to preside over any proceedings that determine guilt or innocence, and a jury to ultimately decide whether the prosecutor's specific assertion(s) would be legitimate or bullshit. Then of course there's the defendant and his/her lawyer, which get their say in all of this.

The cops are only there to try and ensure that no one gets hurt otherwise.

So yeah, you are correct in that bit of it... the police do not and are not expected to know the law, at least not enough so that they can determine whether or not one was broken. Of course they can testify to any breakage they witness, but otherwise that's the limit of their input as per laws.

Re:Under what authority?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The cops in this case were just doing their job, as prescribed by city of Hammond. Would you find a police force which selectively disobeys orders more to your taste? If you want something to start barking about take a look at the already sanctioned judicial overreach, such as laws that allow police to seize property on suspicion of narcotic offences, or indeed narcotics offences themselves. The police didn't write those laws, politicians and unsupervised-for-decades bureaucrats did.

Re:Under what authority?

[Zak3056]

The cops enforce the law selectively, incorrectly, or in ways they know to be blatantly false.

Your rant is dead on, but the above portion of it is accurate in even more ways than you might suspect--for example, the Supreme Court recently said that it;s OK for a police officer to arrest you, because of something that he THINKS is illegal, even if it isn't, because (and to quote Dave Barry here, "I am not making this up") it is unreasonable to expect a police officer to know all the laws they are enforcing.

So if you, Joe Citizen who has no training in law or any intersection with it, do something illegal that you did not know it was illegal, you can be charged, because "ignorance of the law is no excuse." If Joe Policeofficer arrests you for sitting on your lawn when that activity was perfectly legal, that's ok, because police can't be expected the know the law.

Honestly, the US today is like Franz Kafka, Joseph Heller, and George Orwell all got together and wrote a manual called "How to Fuck Up Democracy" and some assholes in government made it required reading.

Re:Under what authority?

[drinkypoo]

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.

That's why we need participatory democracy. These days with everyone carrying smartphones all over the place it's easy enough to simply poll the populace as to what they want and then give it to them, as closely as possible. If people want festivals then the cops they're already paying for should make that happen, not find ways to stop it from happening. The whole point of public servants is to serve the will of the public.

Re:Under what authority?

[operagost]

Funny, then, that citizens are supposed to know and understand every nuance of the law, lest they have their rights to liberty and property suspended.

Re:Under what authority?

[sjames]

It's a pretty straightforward ban on free speech. The supposed purpose of a permit on public land is to allow for appropriate planning on the government's part for the added crowd, avoiding conflict with other people's free speech when they have an event (by making them not happen on top of each other), and making sure the non-speech activities are legal (no smoke ins, narcotics sales, etc). That's all it is supposed to be. A permit that restricts speech is unconstitutional on it's face.

Re:Under what authority?

[operagost]

Agreed. It clearly comes under federal purview, since he was in another state and using telecommunications. Imagine if the Hammond leadership decided it didn't like Bill Cosby and ordered the local TV stations and cable companies to block his TV shows and movies. This is the same thing.

Re: Under what authority?

[AcerbusNoir]

It's a private event, one which you need to purchase a ticket to enter. The rules of *public* free speech do not apply here.

Re:Under what authority?

[sjames]

Then they should limit themselves to that. If one guy hands another money and the second guy gives the first guy a nondescript envelope, the peace has not been broken at all. But you better believe the cops will be questioning you about it in intense detail if they see it.

Re:Under what authority?

[Luckyo]

Not at all. Soldiers are expected to obey the order, then report their superiors through chain of command.

Soldier is not expected to have extensive legal training to recognise complex "on the fence" issues. And disobeying the order gets you in military court where it will be really hard to prove the legality of the order as judges will inherently be on the side of your commander, and in war time it will be a kangaroo court after which you will likely be summarily executed to make an example. Discipline in ranks will always trump concerns like these.

Re:Under what authority?

[Luckyo]

Except that you're expecting police to act like a judge in a very difficult, legally debatable issue that could go either way in court.

That's not going to happen. Granted slashdot is full of idealistic people who think this one is clear cut. Far from it.

Re: Under what authority?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

It it was private event, then the police should not have been responding unless the people in charge of the "private" event called and told them to. When the police enter a "private" event without being summoned and do what they did, then they are even more at fault than if they entered a "public" event. The rules of free speech have no connection to public vs. private and any time the government attempts to limit your right to free speech, it is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Re:Under what authority?

[Predius]

Um, that's exactly how it works. That's why movies can put restrictions on DVDs: You can watch the DVD in your house with your family, but if you want to show the movie to a large group, you'll need to get a separate license for that showing from the copyright holder. This is also why you can't record a movie at the theater, or record an entire stage performance to put up online without potential repercussions later, etc.

Re:Under what authority?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Was it unlawful though? If I'm not mistaken, this concert took place on public property with the condition that this guy wouldn't make an appearance. He made an appearance, the agreement was violated, and hence the concert was shut down.

Whether or not that precondition was lawful is another question, which brings us back to the point - if you want to stop things like this from happening bring the hammer down on the politicians and bureaucrats who start the ball rolling in the first place.

Re: Under what authority?

[fustakrakich]

It's a private event...

One more point against the cops. But, whatever. They do what they can get away with. It's that simple.

Re:Under what authority?

[kheldan]

People who are inclined to become police in the first place are all too often people who are not primarily interested in law and order, but people who are interested in having power over as many people as humanly possible, and being police enables that. Screening processes are supposed to help weed out those types, but apparently it's either not working, or this type of personality is so deeply embedded in the police community that they're just ignoring all that and bringing in more and more people just like them. We see the results.

Re:Under what authority?

[fustakrakich]

Yes, we should take control of the cops. However, I think you will find more people are in support of this than are against it. If we are outnumbered, there is not much we can do. We cannot appeal to a 'better nature' that does not exist. We have to convince people it is in their self interest to prosecute for justice.

Re:Under what authority?

[GoChickenFat]

but that's exactly why we have a court system - to sort out what is and is not legal. Our "democracy" has created too many laws...that's what has fucked up the democracy and I'll agree with the courts that its not reasonable for police to know all the laws. Even lawyers don't know all the laws and that's their sole job. The real answer here is not to blame the individual police but to look for ways to change how they are lead. That means people need to pay attention to who they elect but that seems way to inconvenient for most people these days. It's much easier to just blame others...

Re:Under what authority?

[fustakrakich]

Our 'democracy' so far is only showing that we are horrible at delegating responsibility... I mean, if you're not going to enforce the rules, why bother going through the motions?

Re: Under what authority?

[DarkOx]

So let me understand this argument of yours? If you are standing gutter along a public street you can shout whatever you like and the government can't stop you because of the first amendment. On the other hand if you rent a venue and charge administration suddenly the government is allowed to censor you content? That makes no sense.

Re: Under what authority?

[Lehk228]

That's totally different, Polanski is white

Re:Under what authority?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's complete BS. Perhaps they can't know every law but they can be expected to know any law they arrest someone for and they should be expected to cite that law at the time of arrest. Also to prevent them from just picking any random law that doesn't fit they should be personally liable for say $500/hr for every hour a person was detained in which it was determined an illegal arrest was made. They should also set this debt to be like a Tax debt meaning they can go to jail for not paying the person they illegally arrested.

Re:Under what authority?

[Penguinisto]

They can question all they want, but if the envelope is sealed, you can answer such questions with "get a warrant". They may arrest you, but unless they can get said warrant, they're specifically not allowed to know what's inside the thing.

Now if there are complaints of blackmail going on and your name is attached to those complaints, or the envelope tests positive for narcotics, that's a different bucket of fish... but you gave no real details on the transaction, so "get a warrant if you want to know - otherwise, if I am not being detained or arrested, am I free to go?" is a perfectly legal answer to give to such questioning.

Re:Under what authority?

[sjames]

And then the cops will snap the leash, the dog will bark, and they will claim that means you have narcotics on you. Then off to jail you go, having never breached the peace.

This happens because they 'happen' to know that selling narcotics is illegal, not from any function of maintaining the peace.

Re: Under what authority?

[spire3661]

The government cant deny SPECIFIC people speech. Naming him in the park permit was a huge violation of the First. Also the government wouldn't be silencing you on the CONTENT of your speech, but the venue (yelling in the gutter). Since no one is allowed to yell in the gutter, its a not a free speech or equal treatment under the law issue.

Re: Under what authority?

[GungaDan]

I don't get it. All the keef I've ever smoked was white, too.

Re:Under what authority?

[drinkypoo]

if you're not going to enforce the rules, why bother going through the motions?

There are obviously a lot of steps between here and there, but that's no reason not to try to take them.

You can't give people everything they want. But you can enable people to create them, and you can stay out of their way.

Re:Under what authority?

[steveg]

So, the 1st Amendment clearly applies only to Congress, not city governments (especially if you're being a conservative literalist)

Who rejects the 14th amendment. Which may include most conservative literalists.

Re:Under what authority?

[fustakrakich]

Or the people can push you out of the way so they can enable themselves. Without public oversight, the whole thing is bullshit. The basic problem is excessive submissiveness and obedience in an appeal to curry favor with authority... It's much easier to be the prison yard snitch than to tear down the walls and break out. The people already have what they want. Convenience. They really don't care what goes on behind the scenes.

Re:Under what authority?

[nbauman]

In this case, you need a permit to use the park. Their permit said that they would not have this wanted fugitive perform. They violated the terms of their permit, so were shut down. This is pretty straightforward and they had to know this would happen - they probably wanted the publicity.

I once heard a talk by an ACLU lawyer about that. If a park is a public space, commonly used for public performances, you don't need a permit. A permit is merely a convenience that makes things easier for the the City, the police, and the people who are giving the event.

When the City gives you a permit, they're not bestowing you a privilege or favor like a king would do. They're giving you the paperwork for something you have a right to do whether they like it or not.

And the Constitution doesn't allow them to give or deny a permit based on the content of what you're going to say.

Of course they do it anyway. That just supports the parent's point: freedom of speech doesn't exist.

Re:Under what authority?

[Zak3056]

It is absurd on its face to suggest that a policeman should be able to take you into custody without being able to tell you what law you broke (because it doesn't exist). To suggest otherwise allows any policeman anywhere in the US to take anyone into custody for any reason ("I didn't know that sitting on your porch drinking lemonade was not a crime, my bad").

I agree with you that we have too many laws and that no one (no matter what legal experience they may have) can know them all. However, in a JUST system, the outcome of this is that the police do not enforce laws they are ignorant of, or that they do not understand, rather than enforcing "laws" that do not exist.

Re: Under what authority?

[Dog-Cow]

The (c)rapper was free to spout his garbage in whatever locale he is hiding in. No one is stopping him from speaking. The local government is not required to provide a platform.

Re: Under what authority?

[lgw]

That's sort-of true. The government can regulate commerce in a way that it can't regulate speech. Obscenity laws, for example, can be constitutional if they prohibit selling specific content, as it's not the content that's illegal, it's the business practice. Even that is narrow, though, and can't apply to political speech. Clearly that's not what happened here -- the cops were just being dicks, are they usually are -- but you are more restricted when doing business than when simply speaking.

Re:Under what authority?

[Lord Apathy]

The city should have never used a permit issue to force this concert to close. It was rap, I'm sure there where several nose ordnances on the books to cover it.

If the city was smart they should have issued the permit to let this felon come, then arrested him when he got in the city.

Re:Under what authority?

[Oligonicella]

I admire Volokh's legal analyses and reluctantly have to agree unless there is a clause prohibiting contracts to holders of outstanding warrants. I still maintain that for Keef, it was about circumventing the warrant for money and not at all a free speech issue.

Re:Under what authority?

[Grishnakh]

I'm sure he wouldn't have been stupid enough to show up just because a permit was issued for him to perform in person. (Or if he was that stupid, his handlers wouldn't have been that stupid.) A performance permit does not overrule an arrest warrant; who would ever think that?

Re:Under what authority?

[Grishnakh]

Are you sure about the "Free speech" zone thing? I don't remember those coming about until George W Bush's term; I sure as hell don't remember anything like that between 1989 and 1992.

Re:Under what authority?

[Lord Apathy]

If you read the article it was clear he planed to show if the permit was granted. Since it wasn't granted because he was going to show he decided to phone it in. Which lead to the police rushing in and shutting it down.

If he didn't plan to show up in the first place then granting the permit or not to grant the permit would have been a moot point. No felon rapper, no reason not to grant the permit.

Re:Under what authority?

[mishehu]

That heavily depends on the military in question and the circumstances. Not to invoke Godwin here or anything, but that was a recurring theme among rank-and-file when it came to the engineered destruction of around 12,000,000 lives in mass executions and graves at the hands of Nazis and their sympathizers during WWII. "Just following orders" is equivalent to saying "I'm just a robot and incapable of independent thought". How is that any different than an insanity plea which indicates that you do not have the mental capacity to tell the difference between good and bad?

Sure, as a lowly soldier you're less likely to receive seriously harsh punishment as [hopefully] your personal involvement is limited and some legal issues might not be known to you. But in some militaries - and this I know for a *fact* - you are NOT to obey a known illegal order even if that order comes from the Chief of Staff himself.

Re:Under what authority?

[Megol]

Perhaps you free-speech "pundits" should first understand what it means? The idiot in question (in the story, not you) haven't been hindered to speak, he wasn't wanted to perform at a place and the organizers agreed. Then the organizers fucked up.

But again this rapper have not been stopped from speaking. This isn't about free speech at all.

Re: Under what authority?

[Megol]

Exactly. He is also able to travel to Chicago and express what he wants* using his free speech rights.

(* with some limitations like yelling fire etc.)

Re:Under what authority?

[david_thornley]

Requiring a permit to use a public facility is reasonable, as is putting reasonable restrictions on that permit (which may include security, parking, porta-potties, noise and time limits, that sort of thing). Public facilities are a limited resource. Denying a permit to a particular person for no other reason looks clearly illegal.

Re:Under what authority?

[david_thornley]

If you're saying rights don't exist if they can be violated, then there are no rights. Freedom of speech does exist, and the court system is generally pretty sensitive about it. The courts will not side with the illegal action by the police.

Re:Under what authority?

[GoChickenFat]

I don't think police take people into custody without asserting some law has been broken - however wrong they may be. That's why the court is there. Fighting the police in real time is the worst way for an individual to change the system without ending up a martyr at best. Smart people don't fight the police directly...they change the leadership over time.

Re: Under what authority?

[Lehk228]

Even "gangbangers" and criminals have first amendment rights, even with a warrant. There is no such thing as a warrant to silence someone.

Re:Under what authority?

[edtice1559]

The police can and are expected to know the law. However, public officials enjoy limited immunity in the case where the law was not clear at the time of the activity. Arresting you for sitting on your lawn should be pretty clear cut. Arresting you for some activity on your lawn when the law is ambiguous is a different situation. You may win your case (not guilty of anything) but the officer who thought it was illegal wan't get into trouble. Is that a perfect solution? Maybe not. But it's at least, on the face, reasonable. Standard disclaimers apply. IANAL, et cetera.

Re:Under what authority?

[unencode200x]

The other revenue stream for the municipality are sales and use taxes. That's why so many cities build arenas and conventions centers. They want to attract events and therefore taxes.

Re:Under what authority?

[TapeCutter]

the law seems to be "whatever the fuck the police say it is until a court tells them otherwise".

Yes, it has always worked that way, an arrest is not a conviction, it's an unproven claim. Body/car cams on cops may weed out some of the bad apples but here in Oz the cops are on the whole are decent people doing a dirty job and it should be noted that the vast majority of the body cam videos show citizens behaving badly and cops behaving with self-restraint and caution.

Having said that, when the cop's political masters start outfitting police stations like they do a military base and promote the regular use of guerilla tactics such as "no knocks" and swat teams in a residential setting, you are a fair way down the road to a police state, which is an entirely different thing to a police force. As the Stanford prison experiments so vividly demonstrated humans very rapidly descend into a violent master/slave relationship if the environment they find themselves in meets certain criteria (eg: Abu Ghraib, Nazi Germany).

It's a very deep seated behaviour in humans, we all have a ruthless dictator and a cowering slave with us just waiting for the right environmental triggers to emerge. Religious people have called it "good" and "evil" for millennia but incorrectly blamed it on angels and demons (as opposed to the naturally evolved behaviour of our species). Other than being aware we are all susceptible we can't do much to avoid such behaviour in ourselves, but we can set up political and social systems that discourage such environments from forming in the first place. The fact the US still embraces the death penalty and has such a high number of prisoners compared to the rest of the planet, is IMO a 'canary in the coal mine' for the emergence of a police state, statistically speaking the canary is dangling from its perch by one leg.

Re:Under what authority?

[nbauman]

If you're saying rights don't exist if they can be violated, then there are no rights. Freedom of speech does exist, and the court system is generally pretty sensitive about it. The courts will not side with the illegal action by the police.

No, I'm saying that rights do exist, but they can be violated.

We do have freedom of speech in the U.S., but the government favors some peoples' freedom of speech over others.

The mayors of New York City, particularly Bloomberg and Giuliani, have let the people they agree with express their freedom of speech much more than the people they don't agree with.

For example, Bloomberg wouldn't let demonstrators against the Iraq war hold a rally in Central Park. There was no other public space in Manhattan that could have held all those demonstrators, and the park had been used for other large events, such as free music performances (which were also commercial promotions). Bloomberg claimed that it would "damage the grass," which is an old excuse that goes back to Robert Moses, but Jimmy Breslin, a columnist, called up a groundsman in Kentucky who said that he's had crowds like that with no problem to the grass.

Even worse, the cops arrested demonstrators (and bystanders who had nothing to do with the demonstration), and charged them with assaulting a cop, a felony. The charges were later dismissed when videotapes turned up showing that the cops had falsely sworn charges against them, also a felon. The cops weren't disciplined.

Bloomberg also kicked out the peaceful political demonstrators from Occupy Wall Street from Zucotti Park, which was probably the most deserted, under-used park in lower Manhattan.

This is in a city that has turned over public parks like Bryant Park over to commercial businesses, like restaurants and fashion shows.

Giuliani actually wrote regulations that would have permitted demonstrations by sports fans, but not political demonstrations.

Re: Under what authority?

[zugmeister]

As a member of the public utilizing a public park, he's already GOT a "platform". He's entitled to use it as that's what the word public means. What we're talking about here is the local government actively preventing a member of the public from using a public facility to exercise his free speech rights. Regardless of your opinion of his artistic talents* how can you possibly (I could be wrong) seem to think active censorship by the local government is OK here? Are there other public venues you'd like to see cracked down on or is it just people you don't care for that should be censored?

*"(c)rapper". I see what you did there.

Re: Under what authority?

[king neckbeard]

Technically, I believe that holograms, black or otherwise, are distinctly NOT matter.

Re:Under what authority?

[KGIII]

Free speech zones were first used by the Democrats at a DNC convention in NY in the 1980s. Not that it makes it right.

Re:Under what authority?

[KGIII]

You are mistaken. DNC, yes the Democrats, used it first in the 1980s.

Re: Under what authority?

[KGIII]

What would you call a gag order? Look carefully at the definition of warrant before answering.

Re:Under what authority?

[KGIII]

I got arrested for drinking in public. The state that I was in has no specific law against it UNLESS there are signs (there were none) or you have been told to stop by a police officer. The officer had told my friend to stop - he had not gotten to me. He got to me so I started swilling my beer. (I was distracting him for a different reason, it was logical at the time.) He arrested me. I paid my 60 PR bail and stumbled out in the morning. The case was dropped. But yes, cops can and do arrest when they think you have broken the law. Sometimes you can use that to your advantage. (Nobody got an OUI that night.)

Re:Under what authority?

[Grishnakh]

How would the Democrats use it in the 80s? Reagan was President then (and then Bush I in 89). Unless it was at the state level.

Re:Under what authority?

[KGIII]

DNC, they did try to get elected you know... Wikipedia happily has an article, click on the history section. It is in the first or second sentence.

I realize you probably do not want to hear this but, yeah, it is true. I have no incentive to lie and Wikipedia has free access to all who can make it to Slashdot.

Re:Under what authority?

[Luckyo]

Obvious problem being that like many other legal requirements, they go ignored in an actual war, as soldiers do not generally spend a lot of time debating the "lawfulness" of the said order for fairly self-evident reasons.

Re:Under what authority?

[Zak3056]

I don't think police take people into custody without asserting some law has been broken - however wrong they may be. That's why the court is there. Fighting the police in real time is the worst way for an individual to change the system without ending up a martyr at best. Smart people don't fight the police directly...they change the leadership over time.

I agree wholeheartedly that smart people don't argue with cops, because you will lose every time, regardless of the merits (that seems to be what happened in the recent unpleasantness with the woman who may or may not have hanged herself in jail--she failed to, in the words of Eric Cartman, respect his authoritah, and as a result went to jail for the crime of failing to signal while changing lanes).

Whether or not this is the smart play does not, however, make it the just one. In a JUST society, we would discipline those who casually abuse their authority in an attempt to simply cut off debate about whether or not they are correct in their actions, and not argue about whether the victim of that abuse deserved it or not. Imagine a world where Rosa Parks simply obeyed the order to go to the back of the bus, that civil rights marchers simply obeyed the orders to disperse, and everyone else in that era simply did what they were told--because in the end, this is what "smart" people are advocating.

Once upon a time, our smartest people did not simply accede to the demands of power. Today, we do. You get the government you deserve.

Straight Outta Thin Air

[theodp]

Next album title.

Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I invite you to provide a detailed commentary where I am wrong.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[meta-monkey]

1) I think it was stupid to shut down somebody who, while he's had trouble, currently has a message of "stop the violence." The warrants for his arrest are about child support, not violence. Having a warrant does not negate your right to speech.

2) The issue for me would be the language of the permit. You want to do it on private property? No problem. But it is reasonable for a city to determine what acts may and may not perform on public property. So, did the permit say "these are the acts that will perform" and he wasn't on it? Did the permit say "Chief Keef will not perform" and then he did? If so, fine. Shame on the promoters for lying on the permit application. But if it wasn't in writing and they just said "he won't be here" then shame on the city.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[TWX]

I don't think that you and I have the same definition of, "performance." For me, "performance," is where the act meets the audience as much as where the act is carried-out. One could even ask if there even was a performance if the actor had no audience to see it; if it's in a studio with only those associated with producing the act present then it might not even constitute a performance until the recorded act is displayed for the audience.

I'm a little surprised with the commentary on Slashdot. I see a lot of people getting very passionate when they're probably not terribly knowledgeable about the situation. I don't know what the man's warrants are for, though given the culture surrounding rap and hip-hop I'm guessing that they're not for the same kinds of things that Edward Snowden is wanted for. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not going to stake my argument on the freedom of speech and abuse versus surpression under these circumstances. There are plenty of examples where someone isn't continuing to remain a fugitive to defend.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[stephanruby]

Next time, he should just do like the KISS band, and encourage lookalikes to perform as well. A bunch of wigs with dreadlocks shouldn't cost that much. While the "hologram" idea makes a good South Park joke, live performances from (both bad and sometimes good) imitators are a lot more fun.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[metlin]

For me, "performance," is where the act meets the audience as much as where the act is carried-out...

Well, then. We should all adopt your definition of the term. There's a reason art is subjective - as long as the consumer and the producer agree that it's a performance, it doesn't matter what you or the dictionary call it.

I see a lot of people getting very passionate when they're probably not terribly knowledgeable about the situation.

Evidently, that includes you.

I don't know what the man's warrants are for, though given the culture surrounding rap and hip-hop I'm guessing that they're not for the same kinds of things that Edward Snowden is wanted for.

His warrants are for missing child support payments. And btw, that's the whole idea behind free speech -- all speech, good, bad, and ugly, is worth protecting.

You are now conflating freedom with intent and quality, which is a slippery slope.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[gstoddart]

Are you aware of the meaning of Prior Restraint, and why you cannot prevent speech just because you dislike the person making it?

Any attempt to block this man from appearing must not simply be about stopping him from speaking, and cannot run afoul of prior restraint.

What they certainly can't do is just make shit up as they go and decide through some vague legal reasoning they have the authority to prevent this.

So, are you stupid on purpose?

Because the GP is 100% correct. There is no legal basis to prevent him from appearing remotely, and the city has no leg to stand on here.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[meta-monkey]

It's reasonable to get a permit to hold a performance, right? And on that document, you have to say what you're performing, right? So if they get a permit that says "Sunshine Bunny Play for Kids" and then hold a Klan rally, it's okay to bust up the Klan rally, right? They should have gotten a permit that said "Klan rally."

If the permit said "no performances by this guy" and then this guy performs...

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[drinkypoo]

If the permit said "no performances by this guy"

Then it was bullshit

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[meta-monkey]

I should have organized my thoughts a little better. I said it was reasonable for a city to determine "who can and cannot perform" but it's more like "what events they will and will not permit."

Obviously you must have permitting. Otherwise you can't hold anything, because if two groups want to organize events on the same day, you have to have a way of saying "no, these are the people who have reserved the park, not these other people."

And after that there's issues of logistics for safety, sanitation, etc.

But the control of the "content" is more about what the content brings with it. For instance, if they tried to hold a "gathering of the juggalos" at my public park, I would absolutely oppose the granting of said permit. Not because of an objection to the content of the music (although I do object to it, as it is shitty), but because those events bring with them drugs and violence and leave the city trashed. No thank you.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[cdrudge]

But did he perform there? He was half way across the country at the time of the performance. You don't perform a movie, you show it. I'd say a hologram is just as much a movie that you show then it is a physical presence of a concert that your perform.

Laws and ordinances are all about very specific wording, just look at the recent Obamacare Supreme Court decision where they argued about a single word and what it really meant.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[david_thornley]

The permit only said that because the city had illegally refused to grant a permit for the performer.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[edtice1559]

Arguably, this is a restriction on the participants, not the content. A felon is allowed to stand in the park on his soap box. But two felons are not allowed to associate in the park. Therefore, if I planned an event for people to talk about their time in prison, it may very well be the case that I have to ensure that the participants don't fraternize while waiting to speak. I realize that, in this case, he appeared via a video-relay. So was he "using" the park? That's an interesting question, but not one that is so easily painted black and white. If it had been *pre-recorded* content, that would probably color the issue slightly differently.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[meta-monkey]

Illegally? How so?

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[Dog-Cow]

Permits are granted on the expectation that the rules will be followed. If telecasted speech is considered an issue of free speech (which has not been demonstrated), then it is also considered speech such that it violates the terms of the permit. And don't tell me that a permit cannot prohibit free speech. It would have been perfectly legal for the permit to have been denied entirely, thus preventing the speech of every participant, and not just the (c)rapper evading arrest.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[Dog-Cow]

You all seem to be missing the point that he was not forbidden from speaking. Wherever he's hiding out, avoiding his responsibilities to his offspring, he can talk. He can perform. He can annoy passers-by until he reaches the level of public nuisance.

Free speech does not mean that the government must give a platform; it means that they can't remove you once you have found one.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[Dog-Cow]

Now the city will be prepared. They won't give a permit in the first place.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[david_thornley]

By refusing to grant a permit based on the performer. Governments can't do that.

Re:Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs!

[meta-monkey]

They can if they believe that performer will incite violence, which I believe was their reasoning here as the performer is from one of the gangs involved in the violence. The concert was a fund raiser for a kid killed in the getaway after another gang shot one of Keef's gang members.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

Not mentioned in the article

[FilmedInNoir]

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.

Re:Not mentioned in the article

[Anonymous Coward]

“Nuke the entire site from orbit--it’s the only way to be sure"
                                                          -- Rahm Emanuel

Free speech does not exist.

[Lumpy]

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.

Willl they shut down a TV station?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they shut down a hologram, what makes that different from a TV stations showing a live performance?

Re:Willl they shut down a TV station?

[fustakrakich]

It all depends how fast you can kill the signal

The justification

[j]

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.

Re:The justification

[ZombieBraintrust]

It is prior restraint on speech. This is generally unconstitutional.

Re:The justification

[msobkow]

It amazes me how many rappers are gang-bangers first, and "musicians" second. So many of them put their loyalty to "the gang life" above everything else. :(

Re:The justification

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The justification

[drinkypoo]

It amazes me how many rappers are gang-bangers first, and "musicians" second.

Your amazement is a sign of privilege.

Re:The justification

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't lose your right to free speech - even when convicted and imprisoned. Nice try.

Re:The justification

[Luckyo]

Lose completely? Mostly no. Suffer severe constraints on many of your guaranteed freedoms? Yes. That's the entire point of judicial system. You lose many of your guaranteed freedoms based on your illegal actions that harmed the community.

Unless you think that all those people in jails are having many of their constitutional rights directly violated by the state as well.

Re:The justification

[bmo]

Modded informative

Just barely. Your message simply repeats the official line, which in this case is worthless.

This isn't about censorship of violent lyrics

I agree. it's about completely mindless censorship.

Freedom of speech isn't about "speech we like."

There was no incitement to violence. This was the establishment shutting up someone they don't like. Oh sure, they have a "reason" for shutting him up, but then reasons can always be found for anything. Spurious or not, "the man" wants you to know that these reasons are "for your own good" and "for the children."

Because reasons.

Your cop-sucking is duly noted.

--
BMO

Re:The justification

[Dog-Cow]

Nothing is stopping the (c)rapper from shouting at the top of his lungs wherever he happens to be.

Ironic

[tompaulco]

How ironic. You invite a known instigator of violence to an anti-violence concert.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

You invite a known instigator of violence...

You must be referring to the police, considering the number of unarmed men they kill each year.

Re:Ironic

[tompaulco]

Being "wanted on warrant" means his crimes are merely alleged at this stage.

The crime he committed was not violent, but his refusal to show up to hearings indicates that he has no respect for society. I was not referring to his alleged crime, but just to the fact that he instigates violence through his music and lyrics. This is not the sort of person you want at a rally against violence.

Re:Ironic

[sjames]

If the court that wants him is part of the government that blatantly violates the 1st Amendment, he may be justified in questioning if his other rights will be honored should he appear.

Like it or not, once the government starts sliding down the slippery slope, those questions become justifiable.

Re:Ironic

[tompaulco]

If the court that wants him is part of the government that blatantly violates the 1st Amendment, he may be justified in questioning if his other rights will be honored should he appear.

Like it or not, once the government starts sliding down the slippery slope, those questions become justifiable.

The government didn't violate the 1st amendment. He has a right to say whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean they have to give him a microphone and speakers to do it. The government also has a duty to protect the citizens. There was concern that if this violent man was allowed to perform, then his encouragement of violence could lead to violence. So the venue and the promoter agreed that he would not perform. And then he performed anyway.
If the venue has to allow violent rappers like this to perform, then they have to also allow nazis, KKK, or whoever else wants to perform.

Re:Ironic

[sjames]

The government was not asked to give him a microphone. The promoters did that. Meanwhile, he was never at the park.

The KKK and Neo Nazis march all the time with permits in hand because the government DOES have to let them. They are often jeered by bystanders when they do.

I presume your sig is meant ironically?

Re:Ironic

[shutdown -p now]

No respect for the American judicial system, you mean? That's quite different from society as a whole. I think if you ask random people whether they believe that the judicial system in question genuinely represents them, you might find that distinction to be quite visible.

Re:Ironic

[Dog-Cow]

If he wasn't at the park, how did the city prevent him from speaking?

The city can also pass laws regarding where you can post bills (notices, announcements, etc). Does that mean your free speech is violated?

Re:Ironic

[sjames]

By shutting down the event where his video stream was (almost) shown.

No, as long as they don't restrict the content of the bills and they do permit them somewhere reasonably where the public will see them. No dodges like letting them post them on the inside of dumpsters only.

Hologram?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hologram?

[Luckyo]

It's not a hologram. It's a video projection on angled plastic screen that makes it appear 3D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Hologram?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holograms require systemd to function, so don't worry about it -- you'll never see one.

Soulless Performance

[TwentyCharsIsNotEnou]

Soulless performance by both the cops and the artist.

But you can't really blame a hologram for not having a soul!

Why wasn't he arrested?

[blogagog]

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.

Re:Why wasn't he arrested?

[gurps_npc]

Because they are quite literally too cheap to pay for five airlines tickets - oneway for the rapper and two return trips for the cops necessary to bring him back.

Unless we are talking murder, high profile case, or something in excess of 1 million dollar stolen, the police simply do not bother to extradite criminals across state lines.

Re:Why wasn't he arrested?

[gurps_npc]

1) Bounty Hunting is expensive, not cheap. If they won't pay 5k to have him arrested, they certainly won't pay the 50k. As for KILLING him - he has not come close to committing a crime worth killing over. In fact, your desire to have him killed for $USD 50 K is in fact more of a crime than anything he is wanted for currently. I would rather you personally go to jail than him.

2) Even ignoring your casual attempt to hire an assassin, Bounty hunters are paid by bail bondsmen that have loaned money to people arrested and charged with a crime. In order to get that loan, they give legal permission for the Bail Bondsmen to hunt them down. It is illegal for a Bounty Hunters to go and hunt down someone that has not legally given them (or rather their bail bondsmen) permission to hunt them down. That is called KIDNAPPING, not bounty hunting. They could do a citizen arrest, but you never get paid for that.

3) This was in Illinois one of the seven stats that have either banned or heavily restricted bounty hunting (Canada has outlawed it).

I wonder how much they payed the police to do this

[gurps_npc]

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.

Since when is a video a "hologram"?

[moosehooey]

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.

Re:Since when is a video a "hologram"?

[wonkey_monkey]

It's a Pepper's Ghost of (probably) a projection. Very much 2D.

Re:Since when is a video a "hologram"?

[sjames]

As long as we're being pedantic, Pepper's Ghost is actually limited 3D. If you move your head, you can see around obstructions in the projected image. It's more 3D than a 3D movie is.

News for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Arrest Warrant

[tbannist]

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.

keef is frequently a no-show.

[nimbius]

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.

Re:keef is frequently a no-show.

[Anonymous Coward]

imo Keef is targeted by nearly every barney fife in america because hes guilty of 'contempt of cop.'

As well as a number of felonies, apparently.

his violations include failing to notify for change of address during parole,

Well,yes. That's one of the conditions of parole, you keep the state informed of where you live & work.
(In fact, you usually need to get *permission* to move while you're on parole.)

and making a video at a gun range.

He's a convicted felon, it's a felony for him to *hold* a gun. He made the video providing definitive proof of him committing said felony.

The state keeps him floating in and out of a revolving prison door largely for parole violations like testing positive for marijuana,

Stupid.

marijuana DUI's,

Extra stupid.

and general hooligan behavior. Hes no Bieber, so his 110mph speeding charge sent him to jail as well.

110 in a 55 zone. Within minutes of the trial for that particular bit of idiocy, he racked up a misdemeanor trespassing charge.

Perhaps he'd be better served actually staying in prison, since he can't seem to abide by the law, with a number of additional convictions and parole violations between his 1st felony conviction (January 2011, age 15) and June 2013.

I stand by my prior statement. The Chicago PD should have been *thrilled* to have him show up to perform at the concert. They'd know where he was, and be able to arrest him on the outstanding warrant(s). Sounds like *everyone* involved is dumber than a box of flat, wet rocks.

Re:keef is frequently a no-show.

[wonkey_monkey]

Clearly the 3d holography

OT, but that's marketing hype. It's neither 3d nor holographic.

Re: keef is frequently a no-show.

[jrumney]

No doubt he'd end up in jail for failing to indicate a lane change when he thought it'd be a good idea to get out of the way of the patrol car that was rapidly approaching from behind too. Some people just don't seem to have much luck with the police in the US for some reason I just can't fathom.

Too many laws again

[swb]

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.

Way To Do It Wrong Chicago

[ComputerGeek01]

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.

Yes they probably could...

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Yes they probably could...

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter what the terms of the permit are; those terms are illegal. 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.

Re:Yes they probably could...

[LiENUS]

Is he a convicted felon or is there merely a warrant out for his arrest? There's a HUGE difference.

Re:Yes they probably could...

[bsolar]

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.

Re:Yes they probably could...

[shutdown -p now]

Which is, frankly, ridiculous, because it circumvents the entire notion of constitutionally protected rights. You don't need to get rid of the First Amendment, for example - you just need to enact laws that make most people felons, and then you can selectively strip them of their rights as needed. And this all can be done with a simple legislative majority.

Re:Yes they probably could...

[Megol]

No...

Free speech isn't the only right in play here

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Free speech isn't the only right in play here

[silas_moeckel]

The restriction was prior restraint of a particular speaker. Insuring you have adequate security, cleanup insurance etc is fine.

Oh I would say the event people intended to have the cops stop it for the PR value rather than going to the courts in the first place.

Re:Free speech isn't the only right in play here

[DarkOx]

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.

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.

Re:Free speech isn't the only right in play here

[Coren22]

I wasn't away of the SCOUTS having anything to say about this issue.

Re:Free speech isn't the only right in play here

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy is appearing via live video stream. Please explain the potential public nuisance or danger to others that could potentially arise from allowing him to speak. The fact that he's wanted by law enforcement doesn't negate his right to speak as long as he's not inciting people. The local Hispanics have parties in the park from time to time and I get to listen to mariachi music 5 blocks away (Nampa, Idaho). Talk about a public nuisance. If that's allowed then this ought to be allowed.

Re:Free speech isn't the only right in play here

[lgw]

Sure, and had he appeared in person, your argument might make sense as the arrest of a fugitive might endanger others. But that's not what happened here: this was the city simply censoring content it disapproved of.

Re:Free speech isn't the only right in play here

[Vitriol Angst]

All civil rights marches that could actually make a difference would be illegal by the standards of today's Supreme Court. We have "Free Speech Zones" today --- meaning; as long as you don't inconvenience anyone, and nobody sees you, you can protest.

If you have a "low tax, pro corporate" message like the Tea Baggers, you get CNN coverage and can even carry around guns to protect some tax cheat rancher (not a hypothetical).

Something tells me if this were a corporation that is resisting charges of human rights violations, they could still get a video through to a large audience.

"The community has a right not to feel threatened" -- please, that would mean that my right to not be offended means I could forever hold hostage ANY large gathering. No one has a right to be "not offended" or even to "feel safe at all times." The police even organize in communities that feel threatened by them. When about 25% of the males in Ferguson have conviction records -- you think that MOST people want them around?

This is about institutional acceptable vs. something the marginalized people want.

" The city of Hammond refused to let promoters hold the event unless they agreed that Chief Keef would not be allowed to perform."
That seems pretty specific. The city of Hammond -- or at least, the white people in power in Hammond, don't like the message of Keef. Maybe they think he's a criminal and shouldn't have the RIGHT to talk to people.

There were many people in the Bush administration who were avoiding the warrants of other countries and even US counties, and yet, they get speaker fees and engagements.

I have no clue what Keef is promoting. He could be a wacko. But to me, this is a clear violation of freedom of assembly and speech and it's the Haves vs. the Have nots. The people with money just show their messages on the TV -- and now they won't even let someone put up a projector in a park.

Perhaps a Picture of a Jail?

[hduff]

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.

And another sign of privilege

[drinkypoo]

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

Re:And another sign of privilege

[Cederic]

Using the word 'privilege' is a troll in itself.

What the fuck _is_ privilege? What the fuck do you know about the person to whom you used it as a slur? How the fuck is being surprised that a class of musicians don't prioritise their art any form of fucking alleged privilege anyway?

You were trolling, and flaming the person to whom you responded. The bit that I'm amazed at is that you got any insightful mods.

Re:And another sign of privilege

[drinkypoo]

Using the word 'privilege' is a troll in itself.

Wow, afraid of words? We're back here? Even on Slashdot?

Re:And another sign of privilege

[Cederic]

As it happens, yes. I have Aspergers, I get shit scared by ignorant cunts abusing standard English terms in order to avoid having to defend their agenda of hatred.

Happens that 'privilege' is an excellent example of just that.

Re:And another sign of privilege

[drinkypoo]

As it happens, yes. I have Aspergers, I get shit scared by ignorant cunts abusing standard English terms

Oh my fucking god you just made my day. I mean, I rarely ROFL, and I'm not now, but I'm about as close as I ever get right now.

in order to avoid having to defend their agenda of hatred.

You're the one misusing the word "cunt" on something you don't like. Closet case much? I mean, it's OK to be gay, but you don't have to hate on vagina.

Happens that 'privilege' is an excellent example of just that.

It just so happens that if you find yourself getting angry about the concept of 'privilege' then you are yourself a privileged person. If you even have time and leisure to sit around thinking about how privileged you aren't, you are.

Re:And another sign of privilege

[Dog-Cow]

Being an idiot is being an idiot, even on slashdot.

Labeling something as "trolling" has nothing to do with fear.

Re:And another sign of privilege

[Cederic]

You're demonstrating that my use of the word cunt is very appropriate, and also backing up my point about people throwing the word privilege around to push an indefensible agenda.

You still haven't answered my initial questions, because you want to demonize me for challenging you instead of setting out your arguments. It's quite comical.

Re:And another sign of privilege

[drinkypoo]

You still haven't answered my initial questions

Because they were stupid. Go use Wikipedia if you want definitions, asshole.

Re:And another sign of privilege

[Cederic]

privilege

Explain?

Go use Wikipedia

No. I own several dictionaries and none of them explain why you're using a term intended to belittle others and discount their opinions.

You don't appear to be able to either. You truly are a cunt.

Re:And another sign of privilege

[drinkypoo]

No. I own several dictionaries and none of them explain why you're using a term intended to belittle others

You, sir, are a hypocrite. Re-read this thread if you don't understand why. Now good day.

Re:"Rap"

[hawkinspeter]

Hmm, not sure if I'm replying to a troll, but here goes.

Your comment could be applied to any counter-culture (e.g. 60's long haired hippies), but the way that you're applying it here makes you sound like a racist fuck.

Why permits are required.

[sjbe]

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.

Stupid Actions

[JimSadler]

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.

Right to Assemble

[BrendaEM]

Miss it.

Errrrrrrr

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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.

Re:Errrrrrrr

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

No, if they can find you they can arrest you. All I'm saying is that having a warrant out for you should not, I believe, affect your rights to free speech. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can be arrested.

Insisting on organization and safety is reasonable

[sjbe]

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.

Local authority the greatest

[bangular]

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.

Re:"Rap"

[hawkinspeter]

I don't dispute your opinions (opinions are like arseholes - everyone's got one and they all stink).

You may have got your cause and effect mixed up. Maybe it's that people who are placed at a distinct disadvantage by "greater society", (not to mention a greater risk of violence by the police) have chosen to participate in a sub-culture as a way of dealing with the inequities.

Anyhoo, whether you're right or wrong, your opinion sounds racist and is not a helpful sentiment to be expressing (unless you enjoy belittling minority cultures).

No compelling questions here.

[MarkvW]

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.

Restrictions on free speech

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Restrictions on free speech

[Spamalope]

Obscenity standards can be enforced (how you say it), content restrictions may not be enforced lawfully (the message of the speech). Restricting a specific person from speaking at all in a public forum without regard to content? No. Hell no. Crazy people and unpopular people may speak.

Re:Restrictions on free speech

[nbauman]

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.

I can decide that too. What are you saying -- I don't have a right to make a decision if I'm not a judge?

I suppose you think there was freedom of speech in the Soviet Union, because their courts also decided that their law guaranteeing freedom of speech wasn't violated when they put dissidents in jail.

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.

The Supreme Court upheld a lot of things. That doesn't mean they were right.

The Supreme Court decided in Dredd Scott that Negroes couldn't be citizens, and that slave owners couldn't be deprived of their property rights.

I don't agree with that either.

Re:Restrictions on free speech

[Oligonicella]

They're not restricting him from showing up and speaking. By all means he should. They're preventing the use of a venue against the terms of the signed contract. They don't rent spaces to people with active warrants. It was obviously not a free speech issue with him either, but a method to work around a warrant keeping him away from a paycheck.

Re:Restrictions on free speech

[david_thornley]

It's a city facility, which means a government is involved. The government may put restrictions on use of a forum, such as time and noise limits, and they may ban obscene content (although the usual government definition of "obscene" doesn't agree well with mine). I don't see how they can ban an individual, whether by naming said individual in a contract or any other reason.

Not about free speech at all...

[KirbyCombat]

Chief Keef is thumbing his nose at authority. This can not be tolerated.

Re:Insisting on organization and safety is reasona

[nbauman]

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?

Re:"Rap"

[hawkinspeter]

I don't think I can play a Race card as I'm not a member of a minority. So, assuming that I wish to subscribe to your views, what would you suggest? Maybe ban rap music? Also, we could introduce segregation so that rap fans have to sit at the back of the bus and aren't allowed to use the same toilets as non-rap fans.

Not what you think.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Question for US citizens

[manu144x]

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?

Re:Question for US citizens

[david_thornley]

Sure. Lots of people have warrants out for them but live free, because nobody's picked them up. A long time ago, a neighbor parked in our driveway, completely blocking it. My wife, needing to go somewhere, called the police. The officer knocked on doors until he found the car owner - and then looked him up and hauled him off, because he did have outstanding warrants. (My best guess is ignoring parking tickets, because those do turn into arrest warrants if you ignore them long enough.)

Re:Question for US citizens

[manu144x]

So let me get this straight, if a warrant is sent out for your arrest, the police doesn't immediately assign it to somebody to enforce it? Only if it somehow happens that he gets arrested and checked for if he has outstanding warrants?

An episode of southpark?

[tommyatomic]

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.

Re:Insisting on organization and safety is reasona

[Areyoukiddingme]

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.

Any arrests?

[penguinoid]

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?

Re:"Rap"

[Dog-Cow]

I suppose that responding to injustice by cutting your own leg off is a valid response, but don't blame us for thinking that you're just hurting yourself instead of dealing with the issue.

I don't know if (c)rap is the cause or the response to violence, but it certainly reinforces it. It makes it normal and expected. If that's how you want Black people to respond to negative outside influences, you're part of the problem.

Re:"Rap"

[hawkinspeter]

So, let me check that I've got this straight. Are you saying that the way to deal with the issues of inner city ghettos, gang violence, gun crime, drugs and police brutality is to ban rap music?

As I recall, hip-hop/rap music sprang out of a need for disenfranchised youth of low-income areas to have a "voice" and speak out about the social, economic and political realities of their lives. However, it appears that rap music doesn't agree with your sensibilities and you somehow think that it's the music that the issue rather than being a symptom of a major problem in the U.S.

I wonder how you would want "Black" people to respond to negative outside influences? Maybe tip their hat and say "Yes Masser"?
Your attitude reminds me of the Christian right back in the late 70s when they were complaining about backwards satanic messages in rock music. The problem isn't the music and trying to ban freedom of expression is part of the problem.

Blah blah blah freedom of speech...

[ToddInSF]

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.