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.
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.
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.
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...