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?'"
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.
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.
...is if there was a target. Like if the WiFi signal was near a Jewish family's home, and let's say the family was named "Cohen". If the WiFi signal overlapped their home and was broadcasting an idea with a threat such as "CohensRKikes" or "DieJewScum" or similar, I can see a crime being involved. But just something like "JewsSuck" or whatever? I'm Jewish. Everyone hates us. It's just part of life. :)
Sugapablo
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!!!!".
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Indeed, quite the opposite.
-- Salman Rushdie
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
^^vv<><>BA
An excellent point. In Norway, immediately after the Breivik attacks, this was a hot issue. Few people even realised there was a right-wing extremist community in Norway because, due to very specific racism/hate speech laws, any such discussion must be hidden from the public. Hence, online forums, closed from the public, hosted in the US, are where they gather in secrecy with only likeminded people to talk to.