Police Investigate Offensive Wi-Fi Network Name 890
An anonymous reader writes "Police in Teaneck, New Jersey, with apparently too much time on their hands, are investigating an offensive wireless network name. Although the police didn't reveal the name, the New York Daily News reports that it was anti-Semitic and racist in nature. The incident is being investigated as a possible 'bias crime.' It's definitely not what proper people do, but a 'bias crime?'"
You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Its now illegal to dislike anything in America.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Funny)
Why do you think Facebook only has a Like button? It's government mandated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except Republicans, conservatives, Christians, people who respect the constitution. They're all free game.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:4, Insightful)
Except Republicans, conservatives, Christians, people who respect the constitution. They're all free game.
You almost had a point there until you got around to trolling with the "people who respect the constitution" part.
And yeah, a lot of people hate a lot of the so-called values that many Republicans, conservatives and Christians have been pushing these days. But that coin has two ugly sides to it, so let's not pretend like there's anything unique going on here.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Interesting)
No, he's right on that bit too.
Most people look at the Constitution, pick out the bits they like, and then hate on anyone who disagrees with the parts they like.
This applies to both sides of the political spectrum, mind you.
But there are very few who will say "yep, the Supremes ruled that Constitutional (or not), and even though I don't like it, they're right"...mostly it's "I don't like guns, so any ruling in favor of the Second Amendment is WRONG!!!" or "I don't think that States should be able to exercise eminent domain on your property then give it to someone else to make a mall, so it's WRONG!!!!".
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Informative)
You might want to pick better examples to make your point. Eminent domain for malls is pretty off.
From freedictionary.com:
To exercise the power of eminent domain, the government must prove that the four elements set forth in the Fifth Amendment are present: (1) private property (2) must be taken (3) for public use (4) and with just compensation. These elements have been interpreted broadly.
Even broadly, malls are not 'for public use'.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Informative)
Second reply:
Something that few people seem to be aware of is the functional difference in the Constitution of the United States between State and Federal governments.
For the Federal government, unless it is specifically allowed, it is, in general, forbidden.
For State governments, unless it is specifically forbidden, it is, in general, allowed.
That's a fairly crucial difference.
It's also a difference that the Federal government has been doing its best to reverse for the last eight decades, with varying degrees of success.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:4, Informative)
Pretty far off?
Then why did the City of New London, Connecticut use eminent domain to take away people's homes and give it to a private developer for some expensive condos?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London [wikipedia.org]
In the end the people lost their homes and the developer gave up the project and turned it into a garbage dump.
You can't make this stuff up.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Informative)
No, a mall is not a public place. It is a place the public can go to. Owned by a private entity.
Huge difference. Regardless of what the SC said.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:4, Informative)
I know, right? Every time I see a stubborn and rebellious child in public, I inform the parent that it is their religious duty as Christians to bring him to the elders so that he or she may be stoned to death [biblegateway.com], but I always get such odd looks...
How can you call yourself a Christian if you ignore such important verses?
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:4, Informative)
I know, right? Every time I see a stubborn and rebellious child in public, I inform the parent that it is their religious duty as Christians to bring him to the elders so that he or she may be stoned to death [biblegateway.com], but I always get such odd looks...
How can you call yourself a Christian if you ignore such important verses?
Oh look, it's another internet atheist who shits on religion without understanding it.
Deuteronomy is from the Old Testament.
Christians follow the teachings of Christ. Christians DO get to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament to follow. That's why there are so many different sects of Christianity. There are core beliefs that all Christians hold (such as the Genesis story, the flood story), and core tenets they must follow (such as the ten commandments).
You absolutely can be a Christian and ignore all of the kill this, don't eat this, don't fuck that, etc. from the Bible. Christ's teachings were extremely hippie-like, and the differences between the sects about the belief/following/interpretation of Christ's teachings are miniscule to the differences concerning the Old Testament, or parts of the New Testament that aren't about Jesus.
And even if this wasn't the case, what would your point be? That Christians should stone their children to death when they misbehave?
If you want to shit on a religion or religious people, you might want to reflect on the fact that you are the one telling them to stone children, while they consider that to be adbsurd. Christianity is not what you think it is, but iternet atheists like you are every bit the ignorant assholes everyone thinks them to be.
I am not religious, but morons like you make it so I can't say I'm an atheist. I can't say I'm agnostic because then EVERYONE tries to convert you.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Insightful)
So God basically said "Hey, ignore all those things I commanded you about earlier, I changed my mind?" I thought the word of God was immutable? Did God make a mistake? Was he misquoted?
And religious people wonder why Atheists don't take them seriously...
For the record, I believe everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that comes with the caveat that everyone is entitled to mock them if they so choose. You can't have it both ways.
Why the Old Testament sometimes doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
Not at all. When Jesus came around he said he would 'fulfill' the laws of Moses, which the Jews of his day were presently living.
The law of Moses went out to a people who were pretty wild, so it fit the time. Keep in mind, the retribution-based justice of Ten Commandments are thought to date to about the same time frame as the Code of Hammurabi, so when they were 'new,' they actually were a big step forward for civilization - a written law based on justice. And in more modern times, this system was pretty crude and similar in ways to Sharia law. The law as set out in the Old Testament also includes things like spelling out religious/cultural ceremonies, practices such as not drinking blood and cooking meat, capital punishment by society (they didn't have jails worked out in 5000BC), rules on freedom for slaves and debt every so many decades, and so on.
Like the saying, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, Jesus came around and said we need to stop this and start incorporating mercy and other good principles into our theocracy or it isn't really God's system. And a lot of that stuff in the books just isn't really the important idea - you're missing the point of it all - so let's just start by having everybody try to play nice and see how far we get.
Believing in Christianity means you believe Jesus was right and those ancient laws need mercy as well as justice to be right. And a lot of other things, like it doesn't much matter what you eat, but rather what you do. Without believing in Christianity, most first world citizens probably feel the same. That changes what the Old Testament is used for. Since Christians believe many of those old rules no longer apply since they believe what Christ said was correct, those parts of the book becomes a historical record for Christians.
I'm not going to stone any adulterer because the Jewish culture was commanded to back in 3000 BC. Jesus kind of made a stand on that particular one. I'm not ignoring the Old Testament; it just doesn't apply anymore.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Insightful)
In practice people who call themselves conservatives tend to be very much against the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th 10th, 14th, etc.
1st: they are in favor of limiting expression by limiting the rights or outright banning of homosexuals and polygamists on purely religious grounds. They are in favor of limiting religious expression by endorsing only specific christian faiths. They are in favor of limiting the press and expression through censorship of "obscene" material as well as eliminating fair use.
3rd: no one bothers to object to the third
4th: Tough on crime conservatives want to repeal due process and the necessity of warrants.
5th: Torture and indefinite confinement to exact confessions, and forcing the revelation of encryption passwords are all part of the tough on crime conservative agenda.
6th: Telecom immunity violates the 6th by preventing people from sueing in response to the telecoms complicity in illegal surveillance. Summary punishment without trial in copyright cases are being sought by conservatives in violation of the 6th.
7th: Terrorism, enough said.
8th: Torture, etc.
9th: Conservatives very often fail to recognize that the enumerated rights of the constitution are not the totality of human rights.
10th: Defense of Marriage act. Dozens others.
14th: States rights advocates object to the 14th amendment preventing them from infringing on citizens rights.
And yes, I am a liberal progressive. The right to self defense is critical in any imperfect society, and all societies will be imperfect to some degree. Besides that, responsible ownership and use of a firearm infringes on the rights of no one directly or indirectly, and by definition the liberal point of view will not interfere in that (though many self proclaimed liberals disagree). I also know that the conservative fascist jack booted thugs would love to stomp on my throat, I intend to shoot them before they get the chance.
Athiests (and the left) have endured far more (Score:5, Informative)
Except Republicans, conservatives, Christians, people who respect the constitution. They're all free game.
Oh, cry me a river. If you think the last 6 or 8 years have been bad for the right, try the last 30 as a liberal, socialist, or (the group most discriminated against of all) an athiest. Republicans and evangelists got a free ride for 20+ years spewing hate but receiving mostly reason and thoughtful discussion in return. Eventually they abused their position too much, and triggered a small taste back of what they've been dishing out since the early 80s, if not earlier.
Hating anyone on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, political stance, etc. is wrong, but for you to wax self-righteous over the backlash against the group most responsible for delivering such hatred (c.f. just about any talk radio, not to mention fox or the politicians themselves, e.g. Mr Frothy Mix Santorum).
In short, Republicans, conservative, and Christians like to dish it out in droves, but can't take the heat when they get even a tiny percentage of it back. As for your disingenous "respect the constitution" crap, they only respect their one narrow interpretation of the constitution, no one else's. Not unlike certain organizations who interpreted the bible one narrow way, and fought a hundred-year war to burn everyone else as heretics.
Re:Athiests (and the left) have endured far more (Score:4, Funny)
and fought a hundred-year war to burn everyone else as heretics.
Yeah, no one expected THAT! [wikipedia.org]
Re:Athiests (and the left) have endured far more (Score:4, Informative)
Please tell me a time when in my lifetime when it was not considered politically correct to criticize Christians in the U.S.?
Right now, today, actually. Unless of course you're talking about the tiny percentage of Christians who are the right-wing evangelical anti-science delusional nutbags. They're fair game, and should be, because of their own intolerant hate-spewing behavior. But mainstream Christians really do not get criticized--because there's not really much reason for it.
Please name the comedian who makes a living belittling atheists? Or even has that as a significant part of their routine?
Comedians??? Please, that's just pathetic. But hey, off the top of my head: South Park has of course mocked all religions, and Jeff Dunham gets great mileage from mocking the fringe elements of a certain other religion ;-)
For that matter, when have liberals spent more time using reason and thoughtful discussion to oppose Republicans and not "they want to kill granny" lines?
WHAT THE FUCK??? It's the right wing, tea party & conservative talk radio, that RIGHT NOW TODAY is circulating false emails about physicians not being "allowed" by the Obama administration to treat various ailments in people over 70!
Pathetic, and a dumbfuck, and ignorant of what's going on around you--but I'm sure you think of yourself as a fine representation of Christian values in America!
Re:Athiests (and the left) have endured far more (Score:5, Insightful)
Please tell me a time when in my lifetime when it was not considered politically correct to criticize Christians in the U.S.? Please name the comedian who makes a living belittling atheists? Or even has that as a significant part of their routine?
I think comedians' acts support the exact opposite point from the one you're trying to make, since a lot of comedy is about reversals of expectations. Comedians don't hate on atheists (or, to some extent, women, minorities [unless they're a member of that minority], poor people, the physically/mentally challenged, etc.) because it's not very funny. It's not that it's too un-PC, but these groups get belittled all the time in real life (it's pervasive throughout our society), and it's just not that funny to see a comedian do the same thing.
For example, it's widely accepted as funny, across many disparate cultures, to see a man lose a game or a fight to a woman, or to see a man dressed as a woman, because it's a reversal of what you'd normally expect -- a man "lowered" to an inferior status, that of a woman. However, it's not very funny to see a man beat a woman in a fight or win a game against a woman, generally. Does this mean that society is biased toward women, since comedies tend to show them with the upper hand? Of course not, it shows the exact opposite, since it's funny when the woman has the upper hand.
Note: this is all hastily written and full of generalizations. I'm not stating anything about what you or I personally find funny, but more society-wide observations. Also, I realize we were talking about christians/atheists; the male/female divide is more obvious and widespread, so it's easier to point out examples, but similar phenomena exist in both places.
Re:Athiests (and the left) have endured far more (Score:5, Insightful)
You're probably trolling or baiting here:
Christians are fucking morons, there is no god. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, etc, throw them all in a pit of fire.
Anyone believing in fucking sand dwelling nomadic fairy tails today, needs to give up their right to use technology and science.
But, on the off chance that these are your genuine feelings, perhaps you would favor a boycott of science and technology which was contributed to by Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, etc...
Have you ever heard the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"? Where do you suppose the giants thought they were standing?
Re:Athiests (and the left) have endured far more (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd love to see your science that categorically disproves the existence of a God.
Perhaps you can provide evidence that disproves the existence of leprechauns.
The burden of proof falls upon those making the claim, not the other way around.
Re:Athiests (and the left) have endured far more (Score:5, Informative)
You're so full of shit. ... You are a pathetic moron.
I think you just proved his point...
Re:Athiests (and the left) have endured far more (Score:5, Insightful)
Atheism is an extremely broad term. Some atheists do positively assert that there is no god, and the real extreme of that group will organize in ways that can be compared to organized religion, but those people are quite few. Similarly agnosticism is a broad term too with lots of practical overlap in the group of atheists. But there is a subtle difference between the two simplest definitions of the terms, i.e. "the question of a god's existence is not answerable" (agnosticism) and "I don't care about the question of a god's existence" (atheism).
You're allowed to Hate Whitey (Score:3, Insightful)
You're still allowed to hate whitey, especially if whitey has any wealth to speak of. That's perfectly okay, because wealthy whitey is the source of all of the world's ills.
Re:You're allowed to Hate Whitey (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're allowed to Hate Whitey (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, there's nothing worse than a rich whitey [talkingpointsmemo.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're allowed to Hate Whitey (Score:5, Informative)
And the white bit... well, with one or two exceptions, that's just how it's working out.
Guns, Germs and Steel. [wikipedia.org] That's pretty much why white Eurasian culture rules the modern world, because they were in the right place at the right time...
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech, pretty much by definition trumps freedom from being offended.
You didn't read TFA did you? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You didn't read TFA did you? (Score:4, Informative)
How does that make it a crime all of a sudden?
Trespass at the very least, probably defacing property. Possibly, illegal access to a computer device.
Re:You didn't read TFA did you? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously? You think that the police are the ones who should deal with it in a way that doesn't let it grow into something worse?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your freedoms end where other people begin. I mean, there's an incredibly obvious distinction to be made between me feeling that your post is sophomoric and inane, and me broadcasting the notion with a megaphone.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there is.
And BOTH are constitutionally protected in the USA.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Insightful)
there's an incredibly obvious distinction to be made between me feeling that your post is sophomoric and inane, and me broadcasting the notion with a megaphone.
Yes, but unless you are violating a local noise ordnance, it is still not illegal for you to do so, nor does it violate anyone's rights. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, quite the opposite.
-- Salman Rushdie
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:4, Insightful)
No there isn't. You cunt. Free speech is free speech, my (and your) right to a megaphone trumps anyone's wish to not be inconvenienced by our speaking freely.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Informative)
Except that you are in fact completely wrong.
It's legal for neo-Nazis to march through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, according to the US Supreme Court [wikipedia.org]. It's legal for the KKK to exist. It's legal to stand around at funerals holding signs that say "God Hates Fags".
It's legal to hate things, or hate people, or hate groups of people, and to voice those opinions. What's not legal is committing a crime based on those opinions.
What's also quite possible is that the police have overstepped their bounds.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess I'm not sure if it's a crime to speak about hating any race/gender/sexual orientation/religion, or if the only risk is the civil suit that you might get handed to you. And if it IS a crime to simply talk about how you hate them, why the fuck is that so?
It is not a crime. It only becomes a crime when the hate crosses the line between speech and action. If it were illegal, every KKK/neo-nazi member would have already been arrested. Hell, even Obama's minister from Chicago would have been arrested (I'm sure we all remember him). And it needs to stay this way. As much as I would like to silence all the KKK's, or the Westboros (I refuse to ever use the words "baptist" or "church" to describe them), it really is a slippery slope. If we make what they do illegal, how long will it be before any kind of offensive word brings a criminal sentence?
On another note, racism/sexism/etc will only exist as long as people get offended. As long as there is a line that can be crossed, these issues will continue to exist. People will continue to do it exactly BECAUSE it provokes responses. People get offended because they let themselves be offended. Other posters said jokingly that the only people that you are allowed to hate are white, male, republican, and christian. In a way, it's true, simply because we (I am roughly 2.5 of those 4 things) do not let those things offend us. It has no effect on us. Aim the same sort of vitriol to black people, or Jews, or homosexuals that is constantly aimed at WASPs, and you would unleash a firestorm.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Insightful)
it's hard as hell to figure out the line between someone exercising their right for free speech and someone inciting violence
No its not, statist ass holes want to propagandize you into thinking that is the case but its not true. inciting violence pretty much means a direct threat of some kind, which *IS* assault, or telling someone else to make such a threat or take such action.
Unless you are actually out there saying something equivalent to "lets lynch the ...." its not inciting anything. Even "I think the ... should all be lynched." is not inciting anything.
The simple fact is hate crimes, and hate speech laws are nothing but immoral censorship. That is right anyone who supports hate ... whatever laws in my option is just someone who is against freedom.
Every crime that is "hate" crime is a crime in and of itself already. Assault, battery, etc are all crimes already. They are crimes because they violate the rights and security of others. They are not more or less wrong because of the perpetrators reasons. All people are equal, its no more wrong for me to beat you because I hate what you are than it is for me to beat you for any other reason.
This is supposed to be a nation of free people, that SHOULD include the freedom of some to hate. What its does not include is the freedom to act on that hate when it violates the rights and freedoms of others.
Re:You're not allowed to hate in America (Score:5, Interesting)
SSID (Score:3)
As it stands, this type of thing is clearly indicates immature people who crave attention, much like people who put huge subwoofers in their car, or loud exhausts on their bikes, or over the top and distracting decorations on their lawns. I support the police giving them the attention they desire.
Re:SSID (Score:5, Insightful)
Another reason to have a closed network. Not so much a security issue, but avoids snooping authorities. Sure they could wardrive, but at least one has a possible affermative defense.
As it stands, this type of thing is clearly indicates immature people who crave attention, much like people who put huge subwoofers in their car, or loud exhausts on their bikes, or over the top and distracting decorations on their lawns. I support the police giving them the attention they desire.
Who says that it was the government snooping? TFA says it was a passer by who caught it in her phone. Please do not invent thinks out of thin air.
As if it is worth investigating, well... The test should be "If someone would write the same thing on his own property, would we punish him?" If it is yes, then it should investigating because he is painting it every time his WiFi broadcast. If it is not, then what would you when you find him? Tell him to please change the SSID?
So, mostly it should be a question of it falls under free speech or not, and act in consequence. The fact that the data is not transmitted with visible light but with higher frequencies is irrelevant.
Also, is it too much asking to The Fine Editor to put less emotional summary. If he has already decided that it is a waste of time, no sense in us being allowed to comment. Just put the text and disable the commenting, if that is what he/she wants. This site quality is going down fast.
Re:SSID (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that the data is not transmitted with visible light but with higher frequencies is irrelevant.
What is this, WiFi over Gamma Rays or something?
Last time I checked, radio frequencies were well BELOW the visible spectrum...
Re:SSID (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SSID (Score:5, Informative)
I think almost everyone commenting in here missed that very important fact.
So, here it is repeated directly from the article:
The offending signal was coming from a router connected in the Richard Rodda Community Center in the the township, located 10 miles outside New York City.
Re:SSID (Score:4)
Gosh, a router in a public rec center (surrounded by teenagers all day) probably set up by volunteer IT support without the knowledge of how to properly secure it ends up with an SSID straight off of Xbox live? What a shocker.
Re:SSID (Score:5, Insightful)
Another way of putting it: A private citizen putting a sign reading "Romanes ite domum" on their front lawn is perfectly fine. The mayor putting "Romanes ite domum" on the lawn of the town hall in a town that's in the middle of a zoning dispute involving the Catholic Church, not so much.
Re:SSID (Score:5, Funny)
As it stands, this type of thing is clearly indicates immature people who crave attention,
Hah.
My SSID is: "I fucked your wife!", but that's because I actually fucked my neighbor's wife.
Re:You're talking about the police, aye? (Score:5, Funny)
Although I am not an iPhone user, the article makes it sound like the SSID just "popped up on the person's iPhone" as if to imply that they weren't scanning for a WiFi connection at the time. If this is truly the case, then Apple should be the one charged with exposing this poor victim to this hateful speech. They should either not display SSIDs as they do or they should pass the names through a "politically correct" filter before it reaches the user's eyes.
Article contains a pretty big clue. (Score:5, Interesting)
FTFA: 'Police received similar complaints about the signal Friday during a "teen night" event at the center, the woman said she was told.'
So, rec-center-owned wifi access point is found on teen night to have an offensive SSID. The likely scenario is that, with a bunch of teens there, many of whom are carrying wifi-enabled devices, one kid noticed that the AP was not password-protected (or possibly had an obvious default password) and decided to log into it and, well, be a dumb kid by changing the SSID to something that made his friends laugh.
Password protect the AP. Lesson learned. Everybody move on.
The only way I can see this being a "crime"... (Score:5, Interesting)
I Like To Name Mine (Score:5, Funny)
If you wouldn't put it on a sign in your yard, (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't make it your SSID.
[John]
Getting closer to Europe ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when being anti-semite is a crime in US ?
Why the "religion" tag? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this different than graffiti on wall? (Score:4, Informative)
I swear I need to grow up and remove Slashdot from my RSS feeds, just one slanted post after another that invites the most vitriolic discussions and the first posters are such morons for acting like this is a free speech issue, which it isn't.
1) The network name was, as listed in the fine article: "F--- All Jews and N----" (sic). That should silence you assholes posting like it's no big deal or something.
2) The router was connected in a public township building, therefore on public property. And the police found the router, but it doesn't seem like they found the culprit. So either someone plugged in a brand new router in the building, or, more likely, someone messed with an improperly secured router. You can't make a case of private property because it wasn't private property.
3) In terms of harassment, this is no different than someone spray painting the same words on the front door. Sure it's easier to fix, but it's no less offensive.
4) You have a right to think the way you do, however wrong it is, but you do not have a right to put a sign out on your lawn preaching hate speech just because a bunch of people in your neighborhood are different than you. Everyone else has the right not to feel harassed by hate speech.
This is a case of vandalism and harassment, i.e a bias crime. If it was some stupid troll who thought it would be funny, he should be rousted by the police and dealt with in a stern but reasonable manner. The courts will decide if the perpetrator was a stupid troll trying to make a joke (which was not funny) or a serial bigot trying to scare people. But how can you determine which if you don't investigate?
Re:How is this different than graffiti on wall? (Score:5, Insightful)
Still no big deal - Sticks and stones, "get butch, bitch". And, I'd rather know my enemies than have them quietly work to sabotage our attempts at civil society.
or, more likely, someone messed with an improperly secured router.
I will agree completely that this one point makes the present issue comparable to an act of vandalism. And thanks to a massive overreaction by everyone involved, some 3th-rate digital "tagger" has gotten national media coverage of his stupid little prank. Congrats, he couldn't have dreamed of a more successful outcome.
but you do not have a right to put a sign out on your lawn preaching hate speech
Yes, actually, I do. I don't have the right to put such a sign on your lawn.
Or do you not consider every church I pass on my way to work condemning me to an eternity in Hell as "hate speech"? Because I do, oddly enough, and the fact that they belong to an socially acceptable religion doesn't make a damned (no pun intended) bit of difference in that.
Why "anti-Semitic and racist"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why "anti-Semitic and racist"?
Why not only racist? Are _they_ racist? Are some forms of racism worse?
Whose jurisdiction is it? (Score:4, Interesting)
This coffee sucks (Score:5, Funny)
Someone in an apartment above my local Starbucks named their network "This coffee sucks". It certainly gave me a smile.
WiFi "broadcast", like CB Radio? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm concerned about this "broadcasting" thing. Are they going to require we follow FCC guidelines concerning what we can "broadcast" on our wifi routers?
And once they start controlling the "name" we can broadcast, how about the content we can "broadcast"? Will it be illegal to stream "pr0n" over WiFi because that violates FCC rules?
And if a trucker on a CB Radio has his handle as "queer-killer", or makes a statement regarding how racist, or anti-semetic, or homophobic he is, are they going to investigate it as a hate crime? Or just some bored trucker mouthing off to fellow bored truckers?
And why is CB radio protected free speech, but WiFi routers are not? Is it because the government and law authorities don't understand those scary computer hackers? Is it because anything more high-tech than a fax machine is misunderstood and feared by grey-haired fat white guys in suits that got elected only because they paid off the right people?
free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a hate crime if you post such a message on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. If you post such a sign on YOUR property for all the world to see then it's not a crime, it's free speech. (Of course you will probably be fire bombed, but that's another story). Since Wifi is using public airwaves the FCC might be have something to say about this, but as wifi doesn't require a license they probably don't have a leg to stand on. Now if that router was in a public place (not on private property) maybe there would a legal avenue for the police.
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Insightful)
Bastard. you actually made me go read TFA.
After reading it, I'm about 99% sure that what they've got there isn't a real racist. What they've got is some /btard or the like who named the router that for amusement value, and succeeded in trolling the public beyond his wildest dreams.
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Funny)
No one is safe from the constant bombardment of visciously named SSID's
I saw one this morning, "festivus". A term from a sitcom that belittles the celebration of the birth of our baby lord Jesus Christ.
But I didn't call the police.
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Funny)
Mine is "Homeopathic Wi-Fi".
The stronger the signal you have, the slower the connection goes.
Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Insightful)
Your use of the word "our" is rather arrogant and pompous. Perhaps this is why your faith is such a target of comedians - the arrogant and pompous has long been a staple of the comedy diet.
Thank you, my work is done here.
So now the question is, was I modded troll because I wasn't being sarcastic, or because I was?
It's actually correct either way, I didn't make up the "festivus" SSID, just my reaction to it.
Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you would like to bitch about the Constitution as well?
"Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven".
Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Funny)
I'm so glad my router's SSID is 'serious business'. Because apparently that's what the internet is.
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Funny)
I changed the bluetooth ID of my car's hands-free unit to "POLICE" and whenever I'm stopped in rush-hour traffic I try connecting my "car" to people I see nearby who are (illegally here) holding their cell phones to their ears. Fun times. The reactions I get are priceless.
Probably I should stop doing that...
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Funny)
I've never had any interest in in-car bluetooth.
Until now.
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it doesn't matter if he's a "real" racist or no (Score:5, Insightful)
The last time I checked the 1st amendment didn't contain an exemption for asshattery. How is this any different from the KKK arranging a public protest and shouting the word "nigger" at the top of their lungs? The former is protected free speech but an offensive wi-fi network name is investigated as a crime? Seriously? From TFA, the mother of all overreactions:
“I was shocked, hurt. I felt harassed."
“This should not be tolerated in this town. They should see jail time for it," the mom of two said.
Really? They should go to jail because you felt "harassed" over an offensive SSID that popped up on your iPhone?
That lady is going to be totally fucked when she leaves her carefully crafted bubble and enters into the real world someday. She'll likely fall apart completely right there on the sidewalk somewhere and require years of therapy.
Re:it doesn't matter if he's a "real" racist or no (Score:5, Funny)
She'll likely fall apart completely right there on the sidewalk somewhere and require years of therapy.
All your other friends couldn't come either, because you don't have any other friends. Because of how unlikeable you are. It says so here in your personnel file: Unlikeable. Liked by no one. A bitter, unlikeable loner whose passing shall not be mourned. 'Shall not be mourned.' That's exactly what it says. Very formal, very official.
Re:it doesn't matter if he's a "real" racist or no (Score:5, Insightful)
Suburban NYC-area where people are getting firebombed [jstandard.com] these days by people who say what that WiFi SSID said are not in a carefully crafted bubble. They're in the real world, where those kinds of statements are part of the violence.
It's you in your Slashdot posting pod who is in a carefully crafted bubble.
Those kinds of statements, along with any other kind of statement are not part of violence, they're statements (as you stated). They're also protected by the U.S. Constitution, and the UN Declaration of Human rights. I know, I know.. lots of folks these days only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said... C'est la vie.
Re:it doesn't matter if he's a "real" racist or no (Score:4, Informative)
No need to be an asshat. While the UDHR is a mere "declaration", and therefore non-binding, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which is completely derived from it) is a full international treaty, ratified by most major countries, and is an accepted part of international law. Free speech is in Article 19 (thanks Wikipedia!).
So you might be pedantically correct that the UDHR is "merely" the opinion of the UN General Assembly, it is international law under an only slightly different name.
Re:it doesn't matter if he's a "real" racist or no (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that they called the police out twice, and wasted taxpayer money on someone exercising their freedom of speech. That lady was not harmed in any way. Offended maybe, but I doubt she is worried they will be placing buying artifacts on her lawn while she sleeps.
The asshat who put that as their SSID is just that: An asshat. That doesn't make it illegal. It just makes him or her a douche.
Re:it doesn't matter if he's a "real" racist or no (Score:5, Insightful)
My take on it was that either some employee did this, or that someone simply hacked the router. Not hard to believe as most come without any password protection, and generally use something asinine like 'Admin' for the login name, or even worse, a blank value.
In any case, it would be an internal matter for the community center that may or may not justify police involvement at some point. It should not involve calling the police and having a car sent out to calm some hysteric woman who was offended by something she read. It does not justify the waste taxpayer money sending a policeman out. What exactly was he going to do? Unplug it? I think pretty much any employee of the community center could do that and effectively solve the situation short term.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Name revealed (Score:4)
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Funny)
My cousin's neighbor's SSID is 8===D
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think it takes a doctorate in etiquette to realize that this is a pretty inappropriate joke.
Possibly. Probably even. But if people were jailed for inappropriate jokes, there would be no one left to post on slashdot.
Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a shame the word "anti-semitic" has been rendered virtually meaningless lately. It used to mean something about hating or discriminating against Jews.
Which in itself is a shame because being Jewish, on it's own, doesn't make one Semitic, and the Hebrew people aren't the only Semitic peoples who get hated and discriminated against. But don't tell an Israeli that. You'll be called anti-semitic.
Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Insightful)
It is funny to see how gross generalization of replies is suddenly okay. From reading this thread one can gather that ALL Israelies think that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism. Surely, we are not all made from just one mold?
It is possible to claim Israel is an illegitimate state without being anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic, but mostly this is done by being ignorant to the facts. The arguments usually go to "Israel displaced a bunch of Palestinians in 48, and is therefor illegitimate", without any context (or a simple repetition of the Palestinian propaganda as fact) as to how many Palestinians were actually displaced, what were the circumstances, how many Jews were displaced and massacred in that very same war, the Zionists attempts, in the preceding 60 years, to reach an amicable solution, or how other countries did similar or worse, and yet did not lose their legitimacy to even exist.
I sometimes take the time to enter such discussions, and the end result, when balance is brought in the form of actually looking at what the accepted standards say and what international law actually says (as opposed to what Israeli critics would wish it to say), that Israel is illegitimate because a "Jewish state" is fundamentally morally wrong.
I have never once heard a good argument why that should be the case, while "Greek state", "English state", "Finnish state", "Chinese state", "Russian state", "Arab state" and a whole bunch of other nation states, none of which have their legitimacy questioned, are fine.
Shachar
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted if a minority can see that there are more people with the same idea the concept grows and puts more weight behind it. However in the same breath if you try to censor people for having an unpopular belief it just gives them extra reason to be angrier, and get more hateful.
If a person is a bad person, I would like to know that they are bad, and they should feel free to discuss their evils. That way I know to avoid them.
What I find more threatening is there are so many people with these thoughts and feeling but are keeping quite about it allowing to increase the chances to put them and some other innocent victim together where it could get out of hand.
Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Funny)
What if it was owned by a porn company and that was simply their mission statement?
Re:Ya know.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a hard time getting worked up over stuff like this.
I mean, I'm all for free speach and I get that this means having to hear things you don't want to hear (otherwise who decides where the line is).. however racism in this day and age is just astounding and I have a hard time defending a jackass.
So, even though you say you're for "free speach", you're really only for the free speech of people with whom you agree? Unpopular opinions are precisely the ones you should be fighting for. That's the whole and the entirety of the point of having free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
So basically you've decided that that line is somewhere on this side of racism?
Re:Ya know.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone's a jackass to someone. If the First Amendment doesn't protect jackasses, it won't protect you.
Re:Ya know.. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why I agree there can't be a line.
I get that free speech can't be selective. I get that for me to have the ability to say something, no matter how unpopular, others need to be able to do the same.
My (admittedly poorly phrased) point was that while in principle I totally agree this guy should be left alone, in practice my views on racism clash against my views on free speech and I find it hard to stand up and say "hey, let the man speak!".