Slashdot Mirror
Police Shut Down Anti-Violence Fundraiser Over Rapper's Hologram
An anonymous reader writes: A Chicago rapper by the name of Chief Keef has been making headlines recently after the city launched a campaign to deny his performance at an anti-violence event. The event was organized to raise funds for victims of recent Chicago murders in which another rapper was slain. Keef is currently wanted on warrants in the region but is living on the East Coast. He was expected to perform via a live stream projection. While Chicago officials worked to deny his performance from occurring in the city, promoters vowed that he would still perform.
A recent concert called Craze Fest was just held at the Wolf Lake Pavilion in Hammond, Indiana. The Pavilion is part of a public park. The city of Hammond refused to let promoters hold the event unless they agreed that Chief Keef would not be allowed to perform. Instead, the promoters setup a live stream projection of the rapper and showed it at the end of the concert. Once the Hologram of Keef began performing, police rushed in and began shutting down the event. This raises some interesting questions about free speech and the role of technology in it. Here's a local news article, and some brief cellphone footage of the event.
A recent concert called Craze Fest was just held at the Wolf Lake Pavilion in Hammond, Indiana. The Pavilion is part of a public park. The city of Hammond refused to let promoters hold the event unless they agreed that Chief Keef would not be allowed to perform. Instead, the promoters setup a live stream projection of the rapper and showed it at the end of the concert. Once the Hologram of Keef began performing, police rushed in and began shutting down the event. This raises some interesting questions about free speech and the role of technology in it. Here's a local news article, and some brief cellphone footage of the event.
This doesn't raise any questions about freedom of speech. This demonstrates that freedom of speech doesn't exist.
Perhaps someone who knows some law could explain under what authority the mayor or the cops can shut down a concert because they don't like one of the performers? Is this going to be the new normal? They'll shut down the next one because it "promotes terrorism"?
Had he physically appeared, they could have arrested him as the warrants are independent of free speech. But you don't get to censor speech, even by people with warrants. Parks count as public fora with respect to speech.
And as for "they agreed he would not perform" giving them leverage, that may work over the warrant issue, but as he did not physically appear, it amounts to needing to get pre-clearance from government on what you are going to speak about in a public forum, which is a no no. Good luck with that at the lawsuit trial.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
They spent 3 hours trying to pepper spray, Taser, tackle, and finally shoot the hologram.
The police chief is requesting an increase in the budget for the purchase of weapons to deal with holograms.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
In a world where we have "free speech zones" miles from events, and jack booted thugs called police that are too much of pussies to deal with crime instead of being assholes you dont get free speech.
Unless you are rich enough to cause the police problems. Then you can have some.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
How ironic. You invite a known instigator of violence to an anti-violence concert.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Because absolutely nothing will do more for a rapper's reputation and music sales than to have some idiot police chief stop a performance because he didn't like the lyrics that the rapper had used PREVIOUSLY.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This looks like just a 2D video. Maybe it was projected on a partially-transparent screen (I can't tell from the video), but I seriously doubt they were using voxels instead of pixels.
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.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
hes missed 4-5 performances in the last 3 years and has been sued by multiple people, including a promotions group, for missing them. He was once booked to perform in London England, and mysteriously never showed up. Clearly the 3d holography software was more a more punctual choice.
imo Keef is targeted by nearly every barney fife in america because hes guilty of 'contempt of cop.' his violations include failing to notify for change of address during parole, and making a video at a gun range. The state keeps him floating in and out of a revolving prison door largely for parole violations like testing positive for marijuana, marijuana DUI's, and general hooligan behavior. Hes no Bieber, so his 110mph speeding charge sent him to jail as well.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
Allow his hologram to appear at the event and give his little performance then garnish his wages from the venue. If he wants to complain he can drive his happy ass to Chicago, walk into any courthouse and fill out the required forms. That way you make the issue clear, it's not about free speech or censorship; it's about the suspension of his right to generate revenue in a city where he is a wanted criminal. That way the people get the concert they paid for, the venue keeps its reputation and none of their equipment gets smashed and the only person who loses is the degenerate that is constantly causing trouble for the city. But instead we have this crap where they drag everyone involved into the situation and create a ton of extra work for themselves. What the heck? It's like they're not lazy enough to run a city properly.
Would the police also have shut them down if they started playing clips of Roman Polanski (wanted in the US for raping a 13 year old girl) movies?
If that was prohibited in the terms for the permit then yes. Not arguing if that is right or wrong but they could probably legally do it as long as they weren't stupidly clumsy about the whole thing.
Why should the state be allowed to put such restrictions on permits???
To ensure that the performance doesn't become a public nuisance or a danger to others. The first amendment rights of the people seeking the permit are important but they are not the only rights in play here. The people who live in that local community also have rights. Its not unreasonable to require the organizers to provide reasonable assurances that the activity will be safe, that they will have adequate security, adequate parking or other infrastructure, that it will be peaceful, that it will not disturb the local residents unnecessarily, that public health issues (sanitation, food, water, etc) are addressed, etc. Free speech is a super important right but you don't get the right to endanger others in the process and it isn't the only right involved. So we often require permits for public performances and demonstration (a kind of performance) when they involved public property. The permitting process is typically fairly reasonable and we have courts for when it becomes unreasonable.
This is the state restricting speech on public property.
And? The Supreme Court has long upheld reasonable restrictions on speech in public places. Even big civil rights marches have needed to show that they are not endangering others. They shouldn't be denied because they don't like the message but there are a host of practical consideration and other rights that need to be seriously dealt with.
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.
As much as I dislike Chief Keef and his musical stylings *cough*, I have to side with him on this one. Should an arrest warrant also restrict a person's free speech, or justify police intervention? I have to think it should not, regardless of how I feel about the person.
If we don't protect the speech we don't like, then it's not "free speech" as I understand it. The fact is that we must protect the kind of speech we personally detest if it's to mean anything at all.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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.
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.
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.
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).
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com