All civil rights marches that could actually make a difference would be illegal by the standards of today's Supreme Court. We have "Free Speech Zones" today --- meaning; as long as you don't inconvenience anyone, and nobody sees you, you can protest.
If you have a "low tax, pro corporate" message like the Tea Baggers, you get CNN coverage and can even carry around guns to protect some tax cheat rancher (not a hypothetical).
Something tells me if this were a corporation that is resisting charges of human rights violations, they could still get a video through to a large audience.
"The community has a right not to feel threatened" -- please, that would mean that my right to not be offended means I could forever hold hostage ANY large gathering. No one has a right to be "not offended" or even to "feel safe at all times." The police even organize in communities that feel threatened by them. When about 25% of the males in Ferguson have conviction records -- you think that MOST people want them around?
This is about institutional acceptable vs. something the marginalized people want.
" The city of Hammond refused to let promoters hold the event unless they agreed that Chief Keef would not be allowed to perform."
That seems pretty specific. The city of Hammond -- or at least, the white people in power in Hammond, don't like the message of Keef. Maybe they think he's a criminal and shouldn't have the RIGHT to talk to people.
There were many people in the Bush administration who were avoiding the warrants of other countries and even US counties, and yet, they get speaker fees and engagements.
I have no clue what Keef is promoting. He could be a wacko. But to me, this is a clear violation of freedom of assembly and speech and it's the Haves vs. the Have nots. The people with money just show their messages on the TV -- and now they won't even let someone put up a projector in a park.