Police Shut Down Hologram Concert Of Rapper Because They Don't Like His Lyrics; Pretty Clear First Amendment Problem

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

Mon, Jul 27th 2015 3:21pm — Mike Masnick

The Chicago Tribune has a disturbing story about how the police in Hammond Indiana shut down an entire music festival because they didn't like a particular rapper, Chief Keef, who appeared via hologram (supposedly to avoid arrest for some outstanding warrants in the mid-west). The police don't even try to come up with some other bogus reason. They flat out admit that they didn't want Keef to perform and thus they shut it down:

Hammond police Cmdr. Pat Vicari said the promoters were warned the concert would be shut down if Chief Keef performed.

"We spoke to the promoter several times, and they assured us (Chief Keef) would not be performing," Vicari said. "Later, an officer working the show realized it was being streamed on one of the hip-hop sites, and promoters were warned again they would be shut down.”

Why? Because apparently politicians don't like his lyrics:

Thomas M. McDermott Jr., the mayor of Hammond, said in an interview that his office became aware of the surprise performance, which was also streamed live online, through social media. All of the Craze Fest acts — which included Riff Raff, Lil Bibby and Tink — had been previously vetted because the event was held at a public park, he said.

“I know nothing about Chief Keef,” Mayor McDermott, 46, said. “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 reference to Mayor Emanuel was to Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel blocking a similar concert in Chicago a week earlier, when Emanuel's office declared Keef "an unacceptable role model." Because, apparently, in Chicago, you're only allowed to be a role model if the mayor's office gives its stamp of approval:

Last weekend, a Chicago theater called off a similar show after representatives for Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office deemed Chief Keef “an unacceptable role model,” whose music “promotes violence” and whose presence via hologram “posed a significant public safety risk.”

Here's the really crazy part, though. The concert itself was to protest violence, and was called a "Stop the Killing" benefit concert, in an effort to raise money for the families of two people that Keef knew who were recently killed in a shooting.

As Eugene Volokh notes, it's difficult to see how this is anything but a First Amendment violation.

The government may impose reasonable content-neutral restrictions on speech in such venues, such as sound level restrictions, and may charge money for the use of the venues. But the government may not restrict speech because of its viewpoint, or the viewpoint that the speakers had expressed elsewhere, which seems to have happened here

He further points out that the "public safety" risk claims are not an acceptable reason to shut down the event either, pointing to Terminiello v. Chicago. Even beyond that, there were no reports of any actual threats or public safety issues at the event itself. And yes, Keef may have outstanding warrants, which would make it perfectly reasonable to have him arrested if he did show up, it still doesn't explain why the concert was shut down.

Unless I’m missing something here, then, this is a pretty clear First Amendment violation on the part of the City of Hammond. And it seems to me that, in America, performances by controversial singers can’t be “basically outlawed,” even “in Chicago.

It will be interesting to see if Keef does anything about this. The hologram appearance was coordinated by Hologram USA, the company owned by wacky publicity hound billionaire Alki David, whose antics we've discussed in relation to his Aereo-clone streaming TV service FilmOn (not surprisingly, the concert was also being streamed live via... FilmOn). David immediately lashed out at the shutting down of the concert and rightly called out the First Amendment violation:

"Shame on the mayor and police chief of Hammond for shutting down a voice that can create positive change in a community in desperate need. And for taking away money that could have gone to help the victims' families," David said in a statement. "This was a legal event and there was no justification to shut it down besides your glaring disregard for the first amendment right to free speech.

Some have argued that Keef intentionally uses conflicts like this to get more publicity to market himself -- and even if it's true that doesn't matter. Even if Keef is truly a horrible person in every way, the First Amendment isn't supposed to only protect the speech of "good people." It's supposed to protect everyone. And yet it's amazing how quickly some in power forget this.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: alki david, chicago, chief keef, first amendment, free speech, hammond, indiana, pat vicari

47 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

S. T. Stone (profile), 27 Jul 2015 @ 4:08pm

Perhaps Mayor McDermott and Commander Vicari have a future in rap themselves. Rap loves its controversial lawbreakers, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 4:17pm

I think we should follow the Youtube example and make them take a course on the Constitution. After 3 strikes you're no longer allowed to hold office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 28 Jul 2015 @ 12:02am
  
  Re:
  How would you keep looters out of the government buildings?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Jul 2015 @ 4:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Aren't the government building already full of looters?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2015 @ 5:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Stop electing them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
avideogameplayer, 27 Jul 2015 @ 4:18pm

It doesn't matter now...the message is clear...I'M IN CHARGE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 27 Jul 2015 @ 4:24pm

Will Commander Vicari ban Eminem from performing in Hammond for promoting violence against women? If not, then he's a fucking hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 4:32pm

What about that disgusting "rock and roll"?
Can we get that banned too while we're at it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 4:45pm
  
  Re: What about that disgusting "rock and roll"?
  Rock n Roll... how about a murderer that wasn't arrest? He even wrote a confession claiming it was selfdefence but he never went to trial.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 28 Jul 2015 @ 12:06am
  
  Re: What about that disgusting "rock and roll"?
  Tricky. It's barely a quarter of 106 miles to Chicago we are talking about here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2015 @ 9:43am
  
  Re: What about that disgusting "rock and roll"?
  What about that disgusting "rock and roll"?
  “Speaking for the Council, the Mayor reiterated that the city did not condone rock festivals.”
  
  ——Newport v Fact Concerts (1981)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 4:35pm

oh and that damned depressing Country Music, its all about dogs dieing, trucks dieing and wives/girlfriends leaving, its just so sad and depressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re:
  Just play it backwards, and you'll get your dog back, your truck back, your wife/girlfriend back....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 4:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wouldn't that mean a dead dog comes to live then gets killed and has a happy live back to its puppy days?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 27 Jul 2015 @ 11:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So the trick is stopping the record after the truck?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 4:43pm

>Police Shut Down Hologram Concert

Living in the future is disappointingly lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2015 @ 11:35pm
  
  Re:
  The rapper still looks fake.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 4:54pm

Reson for shutdown
"And yes, Keef may have outstanding warrants, which would make it perfectly reasonable to have him arrested if he did show up, it still doesn't explain why the concert was shut down. "

It's obvious! Keef had outstanding warrants and isn't allowed to be in that area. By displaying Keef the hologram projector was clearly commiting a crime and had to be arrested. Without that machine the concert couldn't go on so it was shut down.

Just wait for the case.. Hammond vs a hologram projector. Ok that sounded stranger/funnier in my head but while writing I remembered US vs a house or a box of toys. Strange world, we can create light that can be touched and what we do is sueing objects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 6:37pm
  
  Re: Reson for shutdown
  I think the most frequently cited absurd case name is United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 7:49pm
  
  Re: Reson for shutdown
  I almost expect to see that case in tomorrow's news. We've already had the Government VS Dotcom's stuff after all...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 5:02pm

Same old same old, nothing to see here, move along...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 7:08pm

Even if Keef is truly a horrible person in every way, the First Amendment isn't supposed to only protect the speech of "good people." It's supposed to protect everyone.

I would actually argue it's more important to protect the "bad people". It's meaningless if if it doesn't: why would uncontroversial speech need protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 9:41pm

The problem is that people in charge of enforcing the law
have no fear of breaking it. It's a whack-a-mole problem. IF, and it's a big if, the pols get whacked (in the sense of being punished via our system of laws) for their contempt and violations of the Constitution, in one place, another pol somewhere else does it, and there is never any consequence for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Wing, 27 Jul 2015 @ 9:58pm

At least those guys go to bed every night knowing they are keeping the world safe from holograms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 27 Jul 2015 @ 11:53pm
  
  Re:
  It's all fun and games until a rapping hologram rips off your daughter's hololingerie at laserpoint.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2015 @ 11:33pm

With the overall quality of warrants described on TD, these ones can't be that outstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love Cartmanbrah, 28 Jul 2015 @ 12:48am

Cartmanbrah
and WHERE is the mention to southpark's tupac hologram?
Please correct this article a.s.a.p. adding the mention and link to the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OBAMAFAN, 28 Jul 2015 @ 12:51am

thats raicis!!!
This white hacker "SNOW"den is allowed to appear everywhere but tupac's hologram is arrested because he is a black hologram?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff Green (profile), 28 Jul 2015 @ 2:28am

Is it not time for a simple act of congress "The egregious breach of the constitution act". Imposing the personal liability and civil penalties on any official who blatantly abuses is or her powers in contravention of the constitution.

The only way to make people this bad think is to make their misdeeds hurt their own circumstances. It wouldn't need to be imposed very often by the courts to have a rapidly chilling effect on the nutters.

Then after this proves effective it could be extended to FOIA blockers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2015 @ 11:09am
  
  Re:
  Is it not time for a simple act of congress "The egregious breach of the constitution act".
  Civil Rights Act of 1866
  The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30, enacted April 9, 1866, was the first United States federal law to define US citizenship and affirmed that all citizens were equally protected by the law. . . .
  
  John Bingham and some other congressmen argued that Congress did not yet have sufficient constitutional power to enact this law. Following passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, Congress reenacted the 1866 Act in 1870. . . .
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violynne (profile), 28 Jul 2015 @ 3:03am

The concert promoters could have easily have avoided this whole fiasco by installing red light cameras at the venue.

Instead, they moved to Indiana, learning nothing about the state lead by one Governor Mike Pence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DerekCurrie (profile), 28 Jul 2015 @ 3:22am

Not Hologram: Pepper's Ghost. It's done with mirrors.
Just to be a techno nagging nelly: None of the 'hologram' stage performances done have had anything to do with actual holography. None of them.

The technology is formally called 'Pepper's Ghost and is performed with light and mirrors. It was first formally performed in 1862 and has a history dating back to the 1500s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost

vs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

No, it's not OK to mislead people with wrong terminology. Research your subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Jul 2015 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re: Not Hologram: Pepper's Ghost. It's done with mirrors.
  That would indicate that Keef or a Keef impersonator would have to be on site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
me@me.net, 28 Jul 2015 @ 3:55am

fuzzy area
If the permit for the venue prohibted the guy from performing it doesnt sound so cut and dry. That said, why not just move the venue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sheogorath (profile), 28 Jul 2015 @ 7:56am
  
  Re: fuzzy area
  There was no prohibition of performance at the venue by any artist, but even if there was, there was no prohibition on the venue of displaying what would essentially have been a live video in 3D.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2015 @ 9:42am
  
  Re: fuzzy area
  The promoters were clearly going for the extra publicity this would create.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2015 @ 11:02am
  
  Re: fuzzy area
  … the permit for the venue …
  Southeastern Promotions v Conrad (1975)
  Respondents' action here is indistinguishable in its censoring effect from the official actions consistently identified as prior restraints in a long line of this Court's decisions. . . .
  
  Invariably, the Court has felt obliged to condemn systems in which the exercise of such authority was not bounded by precise and clear standards. . . . .
  
  In each of the cited cases the prior restraint was embedded in the licensing system itself, operating without acceptable standards.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teamchaos (profile), 28 Jul 2015 @ 6:26am

I read some of Chief Keef's lyrics. They seem to be about what we used to call, 'sex, drugs, and rock and roll'. Which the cops have been cracking down on since the 50's. The more things change ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2015 @ 7:20am

"...we're not going to let you circumvent Mayor Emanuel by going next door."

Excuse me Mr. McDermott, but who the hell do you think you are in "not letting" anyone exercise their rights just because you and your Chicago-mayor-accomplice don't like this rapper or his message. You both should be removed from your elected positions immediately as you are not fit to reside in such a capacity not to mention that you've set a dangerous precedent in disregarding such a right under the guise of public safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCL, 28 Jul 2015 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  McDermott's likely reply (with snarled lip): I AM the LAWWW!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2015 @ 8:15am

Keef can't come to Chicago, since there are warrants out for his arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2015 @ 9:33am

Surely not a good decision from the local gov. But to state "..shutting down a voice that can create positive change.." is a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Jul 2015 @ 12:10pm
  
  It was a charity performance.
  So since the admission prices are allegedly going towards positive change (we'll assume that the aggrieved families are getting the proceeds) then any voice that is part of the performance is creating positive change.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2015 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: It was a charity performance.
    … any voice that is part of the performance is creating positive change.
    “Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible.”
    
    ——Justice Scalia, for the court, RAV v St Paul (1992)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Jul 2015 @ 1:10pm
      
      Re: Re: It was a charity performance.
      We'll presume for the sake of the argument that the symbolic significance of a burning cross is recognized by all parties, and we're not going to concern ourselves with the hazards that come with fire.
      
      A burning cross is a symbol of hatred of and oppression of a racial minority.
      
      I'm pretty sure, even without knowing a single line of Chief Keef's lyrics that he's not preaching hatred and intolerance of a racial minority.
      
      More likely he's preaching hatred and intolerance of an oppressive authoritarian regime that is supposed to be in the service of the people. Given they keep gunning down Americans with impunity, it pisses me off too.
      
      And I'm not going to get into nuances of a situation where This burning cross, normally a symbol of racial intolerance, represents $70 per second it remains alight to be donated to the local department of education, up to 4,000,000 towards the effort of elevating our impoverished children towards a better future.
      
      Though it would make for an interesting discussion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2015 @ 1:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: It was a charity performance.
        We'll presume for the sake of the argument that the symbolic significance of a burning cross is recognized by all parties…
        “In every culture, certain things acquire meaning well beyond what outsiders can comprehend. That goes for both the sacred, . . . and the profane.”
        
        ——Justice Thomas, dissenting in Virginia v Black (2003)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Jul 2015 @ 6:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It was a charity performance.
        There are numerous folks in India who want their Swastika back.
        
        And plenty of people still find the pentacle offensive because to them it's Satanic, rather than neo-pagan.
        
        Numerous dissenting opinions we've seen in recent times have shattered the moral authority that might once have come from a SCOTUS Jurist. You might as well be quoting an SBC television evangelist or a game show host.
        
        Anyhow, my point was to presume for sake of that argument that a symbol was universally recognized and respected for a singular meaning.
        
        Now that we're raising the veracity of symbols, sacred or profane, I think the contemporary controversy over the modern displays of the Second Confederate Navy Jack (*) has demonstrated that even a prevailing symbol of hate speech can and will be tolerated, and its grotesquery denied when there is enough money, power or popularity behind it.
        
        It's a no-win situation. Absolute protection of freedom of speech will be used to protect hate speech and hate symbols. Protections from hate speech or symbols or offensive material (e.g. pornography, mutilation images, goatse, etc.) are going to be used to chill civil rights movements in those counties that don't like certain minorities, and yet, religious institutions will still be allowed to exercise hate-based practices and post hate speech, on the grounds that it is a religious institution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]