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.
Related Stories
"Hologram" technology featuring the Pepper's ghost illusion is becoming a recurring gimmick in concerts, protests, and political rallies. The technique has been used to stage a "holographic" protest in Spain, and was used by current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to appear live simultaneously in 53 locations in 2012, and 88 in 2014. In the concert business, it was used to display a virtual projection of deceased rapper Tupac Shakur at the 2012 Coachella Festival, as well as a similar posthumous projection of Michael Jackson at the 2014 Billboard Music Awards.
Now rapper Chief Keef will reportedly utilize a semitruck modified by HologramUSA to deliver a benefit concert in Chicago from a soundstage in Beverly Hills, California this Friday. The benefit concert is intended to raise money for the families of Keef's friend and fellow rapper Marvin Carr, who was killed in a drive-by shooting, and Dillan Harris, a toddler killed when the suspects crashed into a bus stop. Why not go to Chicago in person? Because Chief Keef, also known as Keith Cozart, has an outstanding warrant for his arrest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @09:33AM
If you're really lucky he won't send armed thugs to shoot you in the back and bill your family for the bullets.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:20AM
Yeah, how is it that the *mayor* of Chicago is able to command the police in *Indiana*? It's absurd.
I look forward to the day when Rahm Emmanuel is indicted for corruption.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:30AM
Looking good! Keep on keeping on...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday July 28 2015, @01:02PM
Yup, something tells me the festival organizers would have grounds for a very very expensive lawsuit based on the obvious First Amendment problems with what happened. Paging the ACLU!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 28 2015, @02:11PM
However, the reason actually given for the termination of the event of course sounds completely trumped up and bogus. If anything, the behaviour most likely to cause unrest is not the performance of the "music" (I can barely bring myself to use that term for something so lacking in both artistry and craft, but people have the right to listen to any old shit, no matter how worthless), but the needless shutting it down. The mayor and the cops should be arresting themselves.
However, if they do sue, and win - who pays? Has nobody noticed that governments don't have any spare money - that's why they keep taking yours. Who will lose the most - the poorest in the city or state. So some may think they're winning, but in reality they'll be losing in the long run. The lawyers will win, of course, the system's set up that way.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday July 28 2015, @02:24PM
Oh yes it does: The reason that this was shut down was due to the content of the performance, which is a First Amendment no-no. For example, it's unconstitutional to shut down a play production because somebody in the government doesn't like what's in it.
As far as who should pay, the answer is Mr Rahm Emmanuel, who is not a poor man.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @02:38PM
Yes but that's the crazy part about it. How can they sue Rahm Emmanuel since it was the cops in Hammond, Indiana who shut down the performance? Rahm can say, "What? I had nothing to do with this. I fully support First Amendment rights!!!" Unless they subpoena his email records and phone records and find a smoking gun where he ordered the shutdown, any such lawsuit would quickly go nowhere with respect to the mayor of Chicago.
It's an especially crappy move on Rahm's part because the people who will get sued are in Hammond. Hammond, by the way, along with Gary, Indiana, is a ridiculously poor area that sits on the other side of the Calumet Skyway and is dominated by old tailing ponds from US Steel. It's the kind of place you're afraid to go in broad daylight, much less after dark.
It does show Rahm is a smarter political operator than Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, who does have authority over the George Washington Bridge and whose handiwork could mostly be traced back to his office and to him when he shut down the bridge to punish the mayor of Ft. Lee, NJ, a political opponent. But it does not explain why or how the political powers in Hammond, IN, would honor his request to shut down the concert when they would bear all of the risk for the fiasco and Rahm would not.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 28 2015, @04:15PM
> Oh yes it does
Oh no it doesn't, for the reasons I stated above.
> The reason that this was shut down was due to the content of the performance
Nope, that is not what's being claimed. What is being claimed is that it is due to imminent harm which would stem from the crowd's reaction to the performance. That's fire in a crowded theatre territory, which is long-established non-protected speech. The first simply does not help you in this situation.
Of course, what needs to be ascertainted is whether there are any grounds for the authorities claim? If not - which is probably the case, some desk-hitler is probably just a bit butthurt that he hasn't got his man yet - then that is clear over-reach.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday July 28 2015, @04:25PM
the reason he wanted it shut down is right here in the summary:
so yeah, the reason he wanted it shut down was due to the content, a first amendment issue.
(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
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Tuesday July 28 2015, @07:03PM
What is being claimed is that it is due to imminent harm which would stem from the crowd's reaction to the performance. That's fire in a crowded theatre territory, which is long-established non-protected speech.
You're paraphrasing case law which convicted a man for the crime of distributing fliers encouraging people not to join submit to the draft during World War I. I think you are correct about how the legal system interprets this kind of thing (not being a lawyer, I could be wrong). I hope you can understand why some folks just don't give a damn about a court ruling meant to convict draft dodgers for undermining an imperialistic war effort, just like we don't care about the slightly more modern case law which says the NSA can spy on us despite the fourth amendment. We see these rulings as being the result of corrupt systems out of our control, intent on undermining the constitution any time it stifles their agendas.
Can they find a corrupt court ruling that gives them the legal precedence to shut down a hip hop concert? Probably. Does that still go against the letter and intent of the constitution? Definitely.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 28 2015, @09:06PM
If other people react to your speech in harmful ways, that's their doing and no one else's. It's insane to suggest that it's okay to limit speech just because someone might respond to it in a way that is harmful. Not only is the logic nonsensical, but it's completely unconstitutional (According to the actual constitution, not the fake modified one that judges like to use.).
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:54AM
Hell yeah. I learnt almost everything I know about the US constitution from a (vietnam, rather than WWI) draft dodger. However, idealism does not decide legal cases.
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, @08:58PM
There's nothing unconstitutional about demanding a licence for a venue, satisfying health and safety laws, passing electrical and pyrotechnic safety tests, etc.
There's nothing unconstitutional about making it difficult for people to exercise their free speech rights.
There's nothing unconstitutional about banning all bullets. That might make guns useless, but technically we're not banning the guns.
None of this nonsense has ever convinced me, and never will.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:49PM
There is an extensive amount of case law on this exact issue. Most notably, a number of cases involving the KKK.
For example:
"The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action" [wikipedia.org]
KKK v. City of Desloge [aclu-mo.org], "It is well-settled law that a loss of First Amendment freedoms,
for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Phelps-Roper v. Nixon,
Denying the KKK a permit [columbiatribune.com]
You'll notice there are a number of cases where the ACLU has defended the KKK on free speech issues.
Interestingly, the case seems to be much weaker if the shuttered performance is viewed as a commercial endeavor, rather than an exercise of free speech.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 29 2015, @01:13AM
Therefore your first link would apply, were that claim to true.
And, as an aside, one of the reasons I have such respect for the ACLU is that they do support the bad-guy when he's in the right.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday July 31 2015, @02:06PM
The ACLU is very consistent on this: All persons and organizations have a right to speak as they please, so long as it isn't presenting a clear and present danger. It's one of their founding principles: They got started defending socialists who were being arrested for inciting to riot even though their actual "crime" was promoting trade unions. And that means that they defend speech that is completely offensive.
The correct response to speech you don't like, in a free society, is speech countering those arguments. For example, when the Westboro Baptist Church came to protest at my alma mater (we had promoted a gay man to head of our athletics department), the WBC folks ended up on a small street corner surrounded by the largest GLBT pride party that college town had experienced in a long time, with the college president and mayor in attendance showing their support. The cops kept the two groups separated, nothing bad happened, and the effect was the exact opposite of what I'm sure the WBC was hoping for.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @03:02PM
The police are still searching for Chief Keef after he vanished when someone cut the power.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @08:56PM
haha, yeah, does it mean Chief Keef fled the scene when they cut the power? Will they charge him with resisting arrest? Will they assert 'hot pursuit' to cross state lines to California and arrest him there? There are so many questions like this that follow from this travesty.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @03:15PM
Hammond Mayor Thomas M. McDermott, talking to the New York Times:
I know nothing about Chief Keef. All I’d heard was 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, and we’re not going to let you circumvent Mayor Emanuel by going next door.
The first half is basically what you expect -- trying to establish a danger to public safety, thus justifying the police raid as necessary to prevent a supposed rap-fueled gang riot. (Also making himself quite ridiculous to everyone who understands the distinction between speech and action.)
But the second half is an interesting admission. Of course, one of the things conventionally distinguishing mayors from, say, kings, was that you could circumvent a mayor by going "next door" -- each mayor's power was constrained to the city he was mayor of. Mayor McDermott seems to be openly admitting that it's not so in Chicagoland -- the will of Mayor Emanuel is law in any city.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @03:30PM
Yes, but why? If US Steel asked for it to be shut down, that's one thing, but Chicago? What does Chicago do for Hammond, IN, that would cause its mayor to honor a request to shutdown a concert? Was Rahm threatening to shutdown the Calumet Skyway, a-la Gov. Chris Christie with the George Washington Bridge, which matters because Hammond's residents mostly commute to Chicago that way? Hammond is an industrial hellhole, and most people in such a place in the Rust Belt commute to the remnant jobs in the factories in those places and the rest collect welfare. Mostly, they don't commute to white-collar jobs in the Loop [wikipedia.org].
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @05:46PM
> Yes, but why?
Occam's razor says because McDermott is just an uptight asshole trying to justify himself and pandering to similar uptight assholes in the electorate.
But if there is some kind of quid pro quo it's probably political, the democratic party isn't constrained by state lines. Dude's probably expecting some campaign support when he runs for governor of Indiana.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @06:32PM
Fans who gathered Saturday left the grounds in an orderly fashion, though disappointed.
In other news, nothing happened at Tienanmen, there are WMD's in Iraq, and Israel has no nuclear weapons.
That is all citizens, return to being productive and orderly members of society.