Slashdot Mirror
Police Investigate Offensive Wi-Fi Network Name
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?'"
That's not what TFA says.
It's important to note that this isn't somebody's home wifi SSID, this was the SSID of the public recreation center's wifi network. As in, there's a sign outside that says "Free WiFi" and it's funded by the town. These "snooping authorities" are policing public resources, not people's home networks.
Festivus actually pre-dates Seinfeld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus
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.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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. 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.
I am officially gone from
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'.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.