Police Shut Down Anti-Violence Fundraiser Over Rapper's Hologram 298
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.
Raising questions about freedom of speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If the government imposes content-based restrictions on speech as a condition of issuing a permit, that's unambiguous government censorship.
Under what authority? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Under what authority? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 opinio
Re:Under what authority? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Yes they probably could... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: Under what authority? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re:Under what authority? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Free speech isn't the only right in play here (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 o
Insisting on organization and safety is reasonable (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 pros
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 - oth
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 r
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Too many laws again (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
They can't deny a permit based on the content of the speech.
Here's an excellent analysis and explanation by Eugene Volokh [washingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Why permits are required. (Score:2)
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, shoul
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Straight Outta Thin Air (Score:2)
Next album title.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 enjo
Unregulated speech, must stop at all costs! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 perfor
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a little surprised with the commentary on Slashdot. I see a
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Evidently, that includes you.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If the permit said "no performances by this guy"
Then it was bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Bu
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Are you aware of the meaning of Prior Restraint [wikipedia.org], 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
Not mentioned in the article (Score:5, Funny)
The police chief is requesting an increase in the budget for the purchase of weapons to deal with holograms.
Free speech does not exist. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The justification (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't lose your right to free speech - even when convicted and imprisoned. Nice try.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
It amazes me how many rappers are gang-bangers first, and "musicians" second.
Your amazement is a sign of privilege.
And another sign of privilege (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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, t
Re:Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
I wonder how much they payed the police to do this (Score:3)
Since when is a video a "hologram"? (Score:4, Informative)
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"? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a Pepper's Ghost [wikipedia.org] of (probably) a projection. Very much 2D.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Arrest Warrant (Score:2)
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 [bet.com] (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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:keef is frequently a no-show. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Clearly the 3d holography
OT, but that's marketing hype. It's neither 3d nor holographic.
Re: keef is frequently a no-show. (Score:2)
Way To Do It Wrong Chicago (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Perhaps a Picture of a Jail? (Score:2)
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.
Stupid Actions (Score:3)
Right to Assemble (Score:2)
Miss it.
Errrrrrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
No compelling questions here. (Score:2)
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
Re:Why wasn't he arrested? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
2) Even ignoring your casual attempt to hire an assassin, Bounty hunters are paid by bail bondsmen that have loaned money to peo
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a hologram. It's a video projection on angled plastic screen that makes it appear 3D.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]