SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
At a hip-hop festival called Craze Fest in Hammond, Indiana, just outside of Chicago, rapper Chief Keef appeared on stage as a hologram. But his Saturday night performance only lasted one song before the police shut it down.
Chief Keef, born Keith Cozart, originally planned to hold a benefit concert for his friend and a toddler who were both killed during a shooting this month. The concert was to be held at a theater in Chicago, but Mayor Rahm Emmanuel's office reportedly pressured the theater to cancel the event, according to the Chicago Tribune. The New York Times says the mayor's office called Chief Keef "an unacceptable role model" whose music "promotes violence."
Instead, Chief Keef told his fans that he would perform at an undisclosed location and enlisted Hologram USA to help him appear virtually rather than physically, citing outstanding warrants for his arrest in Illinois. Fans weren't told Chief Keef would be performing in Hammond at Wolf Lake Pavilion as part of Craze Fest until 9pm that night.
According to the Chicago Tribune, Chief Keef performed his hit "I Don't Like" [remix and NSFW] from a sound studio in Beverly Hills, California. "[He] was talking about putting a stop to violence when the power was cut off. Police rushed toward the stage, turning the music off about 10:25pm. Shining flashlights, they ordered concertgoers to leave. Fans who gathered Saturday left the grounds in an orderly fashion, though disappointed."
Wanted in Illinois, appeared as a hologram in Indiana, still shut down by police. Good thing for him he was in California.
Additional material from the BBC.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 28 2015, @04:51PM
City officials said rapper's digital appearance "posed a significant public safety risk."
Public safety trumps 1st amendment every time.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @05:54PM
> City officials said rapper's digital appearance "posed a significant public safety risk."
What they say and what they mean are two different things. That's just a transparent ruse because they know they can't directly go up against the 1st amendment.
The article also says, "he has a lot of songs about gangs and shooting people—a history that’s anti-cop, pro-gang, and pro-drug use. He’s been basically outlawed in Chicago" which is clearly a content-based justification.
> Public safety trumps 1st amendment every time.
Even when such claims are not a ruse, that's hardly true. What matters is proportionality, otherwise no public performances would ever be permitted because there is always some level of risk.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday July 28 2015, @06:33PM
exactly this, because he already stated repeatedly that the reason he wanted it shut down was that "Chief Keef [is] 'an unacceptable role model' whose music 'promotes violence.'". this was clearly stated as his reason, and "public safety" became a bullshit smokescreen excuse for what was already stated to be his reason. if not for there already being established facts that he had issue with the content and wanted to shut down the concert because of that, then the "public safety" excuse might work, but he already made it clear that the content was the issue, and then he just found whatever excuse he could that wouldn't get him in trouble.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday July 28 2015, @07:53PM
CLAIMING it was due to 'public safety' is weak-sauce. how can you say that a performer being on tv screen (etc) is going to cause social unrest and rioting? and even if true, the government is NOT there to PREVENT things that MIGHT happen due to personal opinions. how would this scale? if allowed, the government would then be free to shut down any protest it wants simply because its 'afraid it might shake things up a bit'.
our very founding fathers WANTED us to shake shit up a bit, when the gov is out of control. its long overdue and, fwiw, they know this. why do you think they are doing all they can to suppress the general feeling of the need for revolution? they know its coming but are hoping to have it deferred long enough for them to live their lives out in their current level of comfort and aristocracy.
this was not a legal act; shutting down a performer for 'fear of something irrational'. but the government has not been following the laws that we have to, for decades, now. no surprise here. scared animal fighting for its life. understandable. pitiful but understandable.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:56AM
Erm, where do I say that?
I said that *they* said that.
Read for comprehension next time.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:32AM
Oh please.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @09:00PM
Public safety trumps 1st amendment every time.
Not if you actually care about freedom, or have read the constitution (Hint: It doesn't say that.). Why do all these worthless scumbags choose to live in a country that's supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' and violate the constitution at every opportunity?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday July 28 2015, @09:00PM
Not in Skokie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 29 2015, @01:02AM
I've been to ice-hockey matches with more aggressive "fighting words" than skokie. And we laughed and drank with each other after the match.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday July 29 2015, @01:46AM
What was the imminent threat to public safety with this holographic popup concert?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 29 2015, @07:48AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:35AM
> What was the imminent threat to public safety in Skokie? Waving a logo is clear 1st amendment. Logos do not say "kill now".
Oh please. You just got finished disclaiming responsibility for defending the bullshit rationalizing of the mayor and here you are playing the apologist now.
You backed the wrong horse in this fight and you're grasping at straws to defend yourself.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 28 2015, @09:31PM
I get the whole fire in a crowded theater trope, blah, blah, blah. But really listen to what you just said. It gives authorities carte blanche censorship privileges and I'm pretty sure that's not what was intended when the Bill of Rights was written. I suppose we can soon toss the 1st Amendment on the bonfire of all the others.
When I think about it, I would rather live in a country were people are free to express their opinions without being gulaged. Even Keef -- I listened to about 10 seconds of the song linked above and it's totally not for me, but I'm not the arbiter of all musical taste and nobody should be. Secondly, whatever opinions he expresses in that song should be protected speech, but we do happen to live in a country where a US Citizen's expression of unpopular opinions can get you drone bombed to death without trial (*) in clear violation of the Constitution, so shredding the First isn't much more of a step.
(*) Anwar Awlaki (sp?) -- remember, the only evidence the public has to support his execution, was youtube postings, i.e. shit he said. Everything else is unsupported bare accusation by the Executive branch -- that's not evidence, that's accusation, just like I can accuse you of being dog fucker -- accusations aren't truth, aren't factual, and can be totally made up for any reason, just like I made up one here. This is exactly like being put to death by an arresting cop without trial and then he or she gets off by saying it was justified, and no you can't evaluate the evidence yourself. Talk about an anti-freedom system.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 29 2015, @01:03AM
Straw man. At what point do I say that authorities should not be fully accountable?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 29 2015, @10:56PM
What straw man [wikipedia.org]? You said: "Public safety trumps 1st amendment every time."
I interpret "every" as "carte blanche".
Secondly, "public safety" in this instance is clearly rooted an executive pronouncement by a mayor and the cops under him.
So my thoughts don't seem like straw at all, more like a logical conclusion, specifically, that if the 1st Amendment can be trumped every time a mayor/governor/president declares sometime a public safety issue, the 1st Amendment carries no weight.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:35PM
> It gives [...]
No it doesn't.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves