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?'"
Apparently the SSID of the WAP was "IHaveSomeConcernsAboutIsraeliGovernmentPolicy"
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Its now illegal to dislike anything in America.
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
So as not to offend Orwelians, we've renamed "thought crime" to be politically correct.
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.
My WiFi is called "I_peed_in_the_hall"
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.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
So basically you've decided that that line is somewhere on this side of racism?
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.
Whilst this example is crass and boorish, in the USA, shouldn't you be able to name your Wi-Fi SSID anything you want and it be protected (as free speech) under the First Amendment ??
Lived with a couple of Students a few years back in a block of houses which included a restaurant on one side of us.
We had password protected Wifi and the like, but still lots of connection attempts from people trying to hack into it, guess the password etc. It was our belief that this was actually the owners / staff because it seemed to occuring even when the place was apparently empty. In the end we changed the name of the WiFi to 'Rat Soup?'
Oddly the Restaurant owners had nothing to say about this ;-)
...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
This made me rembember the compatibility problems I had some years ago when I decided to use "NULL" as my home SSID. And now I'm glad I didn't decided to go for a more (Rage Against the Machine or Body Count inspired) expressions.
There has been a rash of temple and mosque firebombings in suburban NJ. This may explain the sensitivity. The reporter should have put this story in its context.
Everyone's a jackass to someone. If the First Amendment doesn't protect jackasses, it won't protect you.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
This could be in the same lines as the Passive-Aggressive Wi-Fi Hotspots that were popular last year.
The guy who used that name (F all people of two particular categories) is an asshole. But what's the crime here? It's not criminal to be a racist. It's not criminal to have racist opinions, nor to express those opinions.
The problem is more or less one you described though, of "who decides where the line is". Jerks like this are the price we have to pay. But if you don't defend guys like this, then sooner or later someone DOES decide where the line is, and the line will keep moving.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
OK, after reading TFA, I think it would be appropriate to fire the network admin who set up the router with that ID, not arrest him. A public recreation center does have to answer to public and therefore political opinion, and doing something like this is just plain stupid. That said, I do think that we may start to see more of this thing and having laws against it may be unavoidable (but hopefully not as severe as jail time).
I like to name my mobile hotspot "FBI Surveillance Van" and drive around. Clears out the local coffee house in a jiffy!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Well, in an ideal society, everybody would realize that the jackass was truly a jackass and ignore the jackass's ass-jacked opinions. Thus, the jackass would be legally and socially free to make a jackass out of hirself.... :D
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
He would already be fined. When there is no freedom of speech in traditional media, why do you expect it to exist elsewhere?
Not to be picky, but this would be bigotry, not racism. Jewish isn't a race. Of course, neither is Hispanic, but people still treat that like it's a race too.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Don't make it your SSID.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
Since when being anti-semite is a crime in US ?
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
Ah, so it's *Apple's* fault.
Of course, if they actually did as you suggested then they'd be demonised for "sanitising and curating the experience".
Alternatively the user can just switch off auto-joining networks in the preferences.
Why the "religion" tag? Is everything that slashdotters don't like "religion" now?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
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?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
My point was that while I understand free speech can't be a selective thing, in practice it's still hard for me to get too upset over stuff like this.
I love using my Android wifi tethering at sporting events.
I create names offensive to the opposing team.
Why "anti-Semitic and racist"?
Why not only racist? Are _they_ racist? Are some forms of racism worse?
Would this fall under the FCC's control of 'hate' speech in a broadcast, as they are 'broadcasting' the name to anyone with a receiver (aka a wi-fi adapter), or does it fall under the local municipalities' laws about public speech?
V for Vendetta: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
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.
I don't think you really do "get" it. What happens when someone in authority decides you're a "jackass" (your word, not mine) by some completely subjective and arbitrary measure and uses that as a basis for repressing your point of view?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
For a while, their SSID was "White Power-Kill Niggers". And yes, dad and eldest son are a couple of racist asshats.
I do agree with this. From the comments I got I suspect my point was poorly phrased and/or miss-understood.
I get that free speech can't be a selective thing and still be effective. If I want to be able to say anything, no matter how unpopular, I accept that others have to be able to do the same.
My point was that while in principle I'm on board, in practice my personal views on racism make it hard for me to defend this type of thing.
The name of the SSID is immature and vulgar, but nothing different from the average conversation on XBox Live. My concern is with the cops getting involved and talking about the potential that a "bias crime" has happened here. Really?
Doesn't free speech guarantee some dumb teenager's right to say or broadcast stupid things?
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
You can't have it both ways. Understanding why free speech is important, and failing to defend it just makes you a hypocrite.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Gee if we're going to start investigating and prosecuting people based on what they name their wifi hotspot, how about a few other things we should be looking into:
#1) "US Chamber of Commerce" - This is a corporate lobbying group, NOT a government entity. Yet, its name is intentionally meant to mislead people.
#2) "The Learning Channel" - The only thing you can learn on TLC is just how vapid and brain-numbing reality TV is.
#3) "Department of Justice" - The DoJ really needs to change its name. There is no "justice" in the USA, that should be abundantly clear. We have a legal system, not a justice system.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Changing my router name to something similar.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
But did you read this SSID wireless network EULA? It is written, with the fine print, ".....if you are feeling offended, get the f&^$&^%$ out of here......"
From TFA, the passer-by went to the community center and complained, who reacted by calling the police. That makes little sense. Why didn't they just mutter, "oooh, those kids!" and call IT to change the access point config? Speaking of which, presuming this wasn't done by an IT staffer, how in the world was someone else able to hack in and change the name? What, no password?
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Someone in an apartment above my local Starbucks named their network "This coffee sucks". It certainly gave me a smile.
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!".
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?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
I disagree, and that's my right!
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
This isn't someones personal access point. It's at a rec center. Either an employee did it, or someone changed it via poor security.
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?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I can accept that.
Then again, like most people, I prioritize my views into:
- stuff I don’t even have an opinion on
- stuff I have an opinion on but don’t feel strongly enough about to right for
- stuff that I take very seriously and would fight for
When it comes to free speech, I generally fall into the middle one. It’s just not one of the issues I take an active role in.
Everyone can’t be strongly opinioned above everything. There are so many important issues in this world that we can’t actively defend our opinions on everything we have to choose the stuff that really matters to us, and let other differently motivated people advocate the stuff that really matters to them.
Fair enough. And it looks like you took enough abuse that ya didn't need me piling on :)
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Didn't read the whole article but the jist of it is 'offensive ssid offends soccer mom'. Since the wifi signal is broadcast over radio spectrum I would assume this would be the same as cussing up a blue streak on a CB radio. Completely in violation of FCC regulations. I would expect the NYPD to handle this as an FCC violation and not a criminal hate crime.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
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.
Really? Apple's fault? I know that Apple bashing is usually worth a few mod points on Slashdot, but do you think you may be over-reaching this time?
The ignorant jackass is allowed to name their router SSID whatever they want. The other ignorant jackass is allowed to say that the first jackass should go to jail. Nobody is, in fact, going to jail. Where is problem?
Actually, I think that there are some legit laws against hate speech that take it out of straight First Amendment territory, and that's the Libel & Slander side.
Political immunity miracles aside, if you pour a tanker of vitriol into a speech / writing directed *at* someone(s) specific, that's a slam dunk win for the defense.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The impression I got from the article is that someone changed the SSID on a router belonging to the city of Teaneck.
At the very least, if they catch someone, they'll be able to make Defacing Public Property charges.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
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.
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.
There really isn't anything wrong with the name as I read in the article. If the police in Teaneck, NJ want to face the wrath of the ACLU and possibly civil rights law suits, they may feel free to continue their pursuit. As a tax payer, I would be furious that my tax dollars are going to panty waste investigations such as this. I would be writing editorials in the local newspaper calling for the firing of the police chief. Hell, there are people out there with chain saws and they are going after this guy. This is a freedom of speech issue and the WiFi router owner is NOT screaming fire in a crowded movie theater.
"Stupid isn't a disease, but it sure is spreading like one!" -Sandy Cheeks
Yeah I quoted Spongebob, big deal wanna fight about it?!
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.
Fear is the mind killer.
The funny thing about free speech is that racism goes both ways.
Shall we have a police-assiated shaming parade every time a black person speaks negatively of whites ? Cracker this, ghostface that ?
I'm no fan of overt racism, but I'm also not buying into race denial. I think, fundamentally, most people today are still innately racist. People have cultural differences, and those differences cause social friction. When you consistently notice those behaviours in a certain identifiable group of people, you start to generalize. It goes both ways!
For example, I grew up in a neighbourhood with many lebanese immigrants who held very progressive views, and got along with them quite famously. So I assumed all Lebanese people were cool, until the day I met one very hardcore traditionalist who pulled a gun on me because I made a gay reference, and apparently in some parts of Lebanon, being gay is a capital crime. Had I grown up around that kind of people instead of the open-minded ones, there's a pretty good chance I would hate the Lebanese today. The only thing race has to do with anything is that it's an easily recognizable sign. If statistically your brain remembers most Lebanese people as homophobic sociopaths, you're going to spot them at a distance and maybe change sidewalks... or vice versa!
It's not about the color of your face, it's what's inside your head that counts, and I think there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's actual behaviours and ideas. I'm French-Canadian, and I even have negative stereotypes about my own kind. On the surface, we're a bunch of alcoholic uneducated breeders (Jersey Shore!)... why ? Because that negative description covers the significant majority of random Quebecers I grew up with. That doesn't mean we're all white trash. I'm certainly not, but I can recognize that to an outsider, that may be the first thing they notice.
Understanding and working around racism is a far more rational approach than denying it even exists.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
There's a reason why they put free speech in the first amendment. Even if you don't think free speech is important in itself, you cannot advocate for causes you actually believe strongly in without free speech. Free speech is a prerequisite for any sort of functioning political apparatus.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
They need to set a better password on that router.
I thought unauthorized access of a network was supposed to be a crime. Just because I broadcast my SSID in plain text, that doesn't mean that I'm authorizing you to view it:
http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_unauthorized_access_computer_network_crime.htm
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/07/01/1637211/judge-oks-wiretap-lawsuit-over-google-wi-fi-sniffing
Apparently the law thinks that intentionally broadcasting something in plain text doesn't mean that it's free for everyone to use.
If you read my SSID without my permission, I'm calling the cops!
If your particular ethnicity/gender/orientation was attacked with a well-known term that implied you'd be beaten, killed or worse in that neighborhood, you'd be right to feel shocked, hurt and harrassed, for good reason. Either you've had the privilege of never being intimidated that way, you just don't think anyone else should be protected, or you're a masochist.
--
make install -not war
Didn't say it wasn't important, it's just not something I've chosen to actively advocate for.
People only have a certain amount of time and energy to dedicate for pushing their views. I don't feel guilty spending my time fighting for stuff I personally feel strongly about despite there being more important issues. It would be like grabbing a doctor who's working on ALS and saying "cancer is a much bigger problem.. you should go work on that instead."
Suburban NYC-area where people are getting firebombed 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.
--
make install -not war
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.
Hold on, this is New Jersey. There are plenty of NJ residents who live there whole lives within their little suburban bubbles who think NYC is a dangerous place to visit and who are too scared to go outside of their social / cultural neighborhood. It's self-segregation at its finest.
Either you've had the privilege of never being intimidated that way
I'm part Jewish; to borrow a quote from Hesh on The Sopranos: You're talking to the wrong white man, my friend. My people were the white man's nigger when yours were still painting their faces and chasing zebras.
you just don't think anyone else should be protected
People should be protected from violence. Offensive wi-fi names? Not so much. Put up an offensive wi-fi network by my house; my family background is Jewish, Native American, Polish, German and Swedish. I'm sure if you think long enough you can come up with a name that offends every one of those ethnic groups. I still won't be calling the police.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
As I understand it the problem is not that someone named their personal router something offensive, it's that some unknown person renamed the community center's router something hateful and inflammatory. At least that's what I understand from TFA, although even in the quotes from locals there seems to be some confusion on the point.
This may be nothing more than a case of a default password on the router. This could be a tough case to make stick.
The truth shall set you free!
My son suggested we name our wireless box "FEMA Death Camp #7327"
In that particular neighborhood there have been several murders and firebombings of places of worship, all racially and religiously motivated. I'm sure that all those people need to do is chill out. Nothing stops arsonists and murderers like chilling out.
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.
Doesn't this fall under the first amendment, you know that one that talks about Freedom of Speech and those other rights that are getting taken away slowly. I mean the KKK does this all the time in their rallies and it is filled under freedom of speech, I am not approving the message in anyway, but I think that this is just another example where the Constitution is being ignored.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
I've yet to find a racial slur that a white american man would blink twice about. Do you have any examples?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I recall a tasteless network that some acquaintances my mine used to have called "The oven". All of the computers on this network had to have Jewish names.
Yea, a holocaust joke. Hilarious.
Anyway, as tasteless as it was, it seems pretty ridiculous that those guys were guilty of a crime.
It also says you were adopted. So that's funny, too.
The incident is being investigated as a possible 'bias crime.'
No one has been charged with anything here. No one is in jail, going to jail, fined, or otherwise being deprived of life/liberty/happiness - and I bet no one will.
TFA is a story from the NY Daily News for chrissake. All you people with the reactionary, alarmist posts need to step away from your computers and go try to find where your critical thinking skill are hiding.
Libel and slander are already crimes, or at least civil offenses. Again it should be no more okay for me to slander or libel you for one reason than another.
Why should it matter if I tell people you are rapist, when you been convicted of no such crime, for say commercial advantage, than say because I don't like what color you are? Either are clearly wrong. The test is and should be for truth, the harm is effect the false claim has on your reputation, the penalty should reflect the harm. Its not additionally harmful to your reputation if I also call you a N***, K***, or whatever, its harmful to mine.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Got an old wireless router? Make sure there's nothing tying it to you, set up the SSID to be something offensive. Plug into the wall somewhere public, and walk away.
Who's investigating the Police for offensive investigations?
giggity
There's a reason why they put free speech in the first amendment.
actually it was originally the third. the first two were something about allotting Representatives (technically outstanding, but completely irrelevant now) and the one about congress not being able to vote themselves an instant pay raise (finally ratified in 1992 as the 27th). go read it for yourself: here's the original version.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
A euphemism for political crime. See also "hate crime".
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Suburban NYC-area where people are getting firebombed 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.
Wow does this mean I can be arrested for Blue Jacking??
Nah, I'm pretty sure Smurf porn is still legal.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If someone hacked the router to do it, I'm pretty sure that will be prosecutable as a computer crime, as it's unauthorized access of a computer system. Very bad for those involved. If instead someone just put up a hidden wireless router with the message, that's free speech.
Do those rules apply to wifi SSID? I've just assumed they were narrowly crafted rules to apply to traditional broadcast media (commercial broadcasting, amateur radio, citizens' band). You know, stuff that the children are likely to hear. Can someone who does know, enlighten me?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Is the "Sense of Humour" option on your iPhone switched off too?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
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.
How about the guy who made "FBI Surveillance Van" his network's SSID? Is he going to be prosecuted for impersonating a fed?
My Verizon's MiFi 802.11 network is named "InfectedWiFi". I did it as yuppie repellant, to encourage academic loiterers in bookstores to move along.
Now I see it's really a terroristic threat. I must be a very bad man.
I don't know where you learned to read, but "white american man" isn't a stereotype at all. It is a race classification. Also, I wasn't the one bitching about racism. I simply stated the fact that there likely isn't a racial slur you can find that bothers me, or most anyone else that is a white american man.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
They're also protected by the U.S. Constitution, and the UN Declaration of Human rights.
Nothing is "protected" by the UNDHR because it's not law and it's not a treaty. It's just the result of a bunch of guys who got together and said "this is what we think".
Now hurry up and clean up your desk or you can't go out for recess.
Advice: on VPS providers
Well, what if it was part of larger harassment? Like, say, the SSID was HattaBlowsGoats or something worse. Would that be protected speech? What IS allowable to have for an SSID? Or does intent matter?
It is worth noting that Teaneck is an overwhelmingly Jewish town.
All it was doing is telling the local ladies to sleep with the local peoples of Jewish or African decent!
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Now hurry up and clean up your desk or you can't go out for recess.
What do you have a hidden camera somewhere around here? I've got tape over the one built into my lapotp... DAMNIT!
The only exception I might make for this is if the SSID nonsense is a part of a larger campaign by this person to harass that individual. Whereas, they combine this with other forms of harassment to try and intimidate their neighbors. If that's the case, then you may have a real case for harassment and intimidation. Otherwise, I agree: it's just another asshat being a douche.
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.
Speech is not violence. Here's your proof, if you have the courage to try it: go into a bar in a rough part of town and start talking trash. When you get the shit beat out of you, see who gets arrested.
You have the right to call me a dumb American mick. I do not have the right to knock your teeth out in response.
Free Martian Whores!
So you're trying to equate the contempt we have for the wealthy with racism. Sorry, no sale. Wealthy people, white and otherwise, have largely earned the contempt we have for them.
but only to my neighbor.
My SSID is "No_Shes_Not"... and his is "My_Wife_Is_Hot".
I don't even know who it is, so I don't really know what she looks like.
True story.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Either you've had the privilege of never being intimidated that way, you just don't think anyone else should be protected.
Or you're not a cowardly wimp, and I say that as someone who has had guns pointed at me and had a few teeth knocked out. Fucking cowards trying to take my constitutional rights away... STOP IT!!! Giving in to fear never stopped a bully.
Free Martian Whores!
It depends on what you say. If you say someone's gay (and they are, suppose they've publicly said so), and then talk about how horrible gay people allegedly are, I don't see how that's slander or libel. But if you say someone's gay and they aren't, that can easily get you at the wrong end of a lawsuit; it's happened many times here in the US. I believe Liberace sued a bunch of journalists about that very thing, and won every time. Of course, it came out after his death that he really was gay, or at least one of his closest friends said so, but during his lifetime he never admitted to it and strongly denied it, probably because of the social stigma at the time.
Libel and slander are only actionable if the things said are untrue, or cannot be proven true and harm the other party. If they're true, or are simply opinion, you won't win a libel/slander suit.
Moreover, libel and slander are not crimes. They're torts. You won't go to jail for saying your neighbor is (something embarrassing that's untrue), however your neighbor can sue you in court and win a big judgment against you for it.
You can't disprove the existence of a God.
I can't prove the existence of a God.
Well, *&^t happens I guess. We'll just have to deal with the fact that the views are different and neither can be proven or disproven. Perhaps in a few millenia the human race will be a little brigher than we are now. Until then, I'm just going to try to play nice and hope everybody else is up to the same task.
Not everyone. ;-)
I have to admit that I find Jewish hatred confusing. Are we supposed to hate you because you are good businessmen? Help me out here, I just don't get it...
Well, if it's libel or slander, than it's against the law for being libel or slander (neither of which are considered a form of expression to which anyone has a right), whether it's hateful or not. The reason libel and slander are against the law is because they attempt to defame someone with statements that are untrue, and ultimately attack their livelihood, not because they're hateful.
Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?
As an aside, is there such a thing as polite and respectful libel or slander?
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
I can foresee a time in the not too distant future when The House and Senate will try to pass a bill as big as SOPA/PIPA to protect big organizations from any sort of public criticism whatsoever (most likely spearheaded and funded by the Church of Scientology).
The package of laws in its entirety will be known as The Butthurt Laws.
This space unintentionally left blank.
It is just a crime. Thought crimes are stupid. What you were feeling or thinking when you did the crime does not matter; point that matters-- you did the crime. Why you did it does not matter except during sentencing or to bias the jury but there is no need or should be any legal ability to codify bias against a criminal's bias.
Political posturing against unpopular minority groups unable to defend themselves against the scorn of the populace. its textbook. so we get another discriminatory law that undermines the system. Like taxing smokers "for their own good" when its just an easy scapegoat to rob a minority who can't help themselves and already waste money on the things as it is. (Sure they cost everybody more in the end and that should cost them but it has little to do with that politically as stadiums and other things are payed for by them because its not popular enough to tax the majority on a particular issue.) Another one is the crack cocaine laws for decades which were really about racism because 1 group didn't use 1 form of the drug. Or taking away former felon's voting rights sounds ok to people because they forever hate ex-convicts but that also is race influenced in its history and is really tied to class-ism.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Is the person exercising their right to freedom of speech for the sake of exercising their right to the freedom of speech the douche, or is it the person proclaiming in a holier-than-thou manner "that person is a douche" that is the real douche?
Why would it have to be either one or the other?
They are both douches, equally.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Yes, because stuff like the OP's post actually passes for fact and insightful commentary around here.
The OP has also posted a lot of Apple-bash material in the past - just like I'm recognised as the "usual Apple defender", I have replied to him quite a bit in the past.
any reasonable person would be offended by such speech, possibly even incited to violence, so I think a case could be made for fighting words.
Yeah, definitely fighting words. Get real. Assuming someone was indeed offended by it, what are they going to do? Break out their WiFi range finder, locate the access point, lurk around for the owner to appear and then beat the crap out him? Flip out randomly and beat up the next person who wanders past? In either case, blame falls squarely on the sociopath who is beating people up.
The difference between violence directed at you individually, vs violence directed at you solely because you're the member of some group, is that the group violence threatens the entire group.
You have the Constitutional right to say things, but not to terrorize whole groups of people. When you publicly call someone "nigger" or broadcast "fuck the Jews" you are implying a threat of violence, as established by long history. Violent threats are not protected by the Constitution.
--
make install -not war
Well, since its a radio broadcast and its indecent, it is almost certainly a violation of FCC rules on indecent broadcasts.
Yeah. Just imagine all those little children with their WiFi scanners, right on schedule, 7:00 PM before bedtime. They sit down, cozy in their pajamas, perhaps with a glass of milk, maybe a cookie if they're lucky. They flip the switch. The backlight flickers... The night's entertainment is about to begin!
The first of the evening's wicked lineup of SSIDs scrolls by: "WiAccess1519." It's a rough start, but I think MacKenzie in the back just cracked a little smile. Here comes another: "MyDirtySocks2012." That one raises a laugh from most of the crowd.
Another SSID blips onto the screen. This time it's... it's... it's horrific. Unrepeatable, even by the New York Times or Slashdot. "RichardStallmanIsAFilthyHippie191919." Total shock and silence. Roberto, one of the smaller kids, a vulnerable little fellow who lost his mom in a terrible chopstick sharpening accident in May 2009, is the first to break down. As he slips into convulsions and loses consciousness, we wonder how anybody could be so cruel as to broadcast such a hateful message into the ears and eyes of millions of young children. For shame.
Speech is not violence, but threats of violence are speech that's rightfully not protected by the government. Calling people these names imply threats of violence.
Your example is bad, too. You very well might get arrested or convicted by a judge for using "fighting words" that get you beat up, even if the people who beat you get arrested, too.
There is a lot more to the limits to speech than what you think you've learned by fighting.
--
make install -not war
I_RAPE_SHEEP has been my SSID for a number of years. I kept hoping it would make the news.
If I knew it was as easy as renaming my SSID "F--- All Jews and N----" I'd have been famous already.
Oh well. This country is going to the dogs because pluralism ensures we'll all be offended, which means the only safe stance is fiddling while Rome burns.
Futurist Traditionalism
Well, okay, so in my glorious Not-Lawyerness, I was unclear again.
1. If you are upset about a "Hate Speech", check first to see if it is in fact *also* Libel or Slander upon which point you get a result. I believe it is actually quite difficult to say hateful things an NOT fall into that trap unless you are a practiced weasel.
2. Even if the bounds are true statements, "You are a Ginger. I hate Gingers" (Tim Minchin). Strung together back to back it becomes attacking - is that now Defamation of Character / Verbal Abuse? A good judge should sort out when minor linguistic punctuation is trying to slide "I didn't say I hate you" etc.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Obviously, what's happening here is that some police don't know the law, so they're doing their investigative work by gut feeling. If I lived there, I'd want my local city councillors to answer some hard questions about why the police in my area are so poorly trained.
When you publicly call someone "nigger" or broadcast "fuck the Jews" you are implying a threat of violence
So now you're a mind eater and can tell the motivation of every single person who uses the word "nigger"? An acquaintance of mine is fond of saying "There's a difference between niggers and black people." He's an ignorant fool but I'd love for you tell me what part of that statement implies a threat of violence. He's expressing his opinion; it's an opinion that most people would find repugnant but at the end of the day that's all it is: an opinion.
I'm sorry but we don't apply prior restraint to speech based on the actions of people have previously used a word that was once so common as to appear in classic American Literature.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
“I was shocked, hurt. I felt harassed."
Translation: Momma needs a new pair of Gucci shoes and I've lawyered up ready to sue this bastard.
There's enough legal shows on TV now that everyone has down the language to ensure they can sue someone.
Bad taste yes. Pathetic yes. Free speech yes. ...unless of course it was the city's wifi ap that was hacked. And by hacked I mean they left the manufacturer default password enabled.
Osama ben Laden didn't kill a single American. He exercised his right to free speech, and he incited others to act. Even free speech must have limits.
I wan to kill all the xxxxxxxxxx because I hate them and you may want to believe as I do. That free speech is legal.
So if I tell secrets to enemies, and I did not sign a non disclosure agreement, is that a violation of free speech?
If I am able to spend 5 million of my own money to brainwash the voters with my beliefs (for the upcoming presidential election) where is the line to be drawn between free speech and electioneering.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Are you seriously equating plotting to kill someone and carrying out those plans as 'Free Speech'?
I am a pacifist. To win after 43 years of marriage, I let my wife win the arguments. And when she is found wrong, my aha is my reward.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
The argument was about free speech. Where does it no longer be legal or not free?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
Most US jurisdictions might *still* arrest you today because they ignore this, but that doesn't make it Law.
"white american man"
I do believe that "racist sexist homophobe" is the term that is currently in vogue.
(There is supposed to be a Sarcmark® here, but my $1.99 check hasn't cleared, yet...)
You have the Constitutional right to say things, but not to terrorize whole groups of people. When you publicly call someone "nigger"...
What's funny is black people have called me "nigger" (and "bro" as well), and I have hazel eyes and had brown hair before it turned gray. I was always taught "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me." And if I were an Arab living in Palestine, I would most likely think "fuck the jews", would a Palestinian be within his rights to express hatred for a group that has been lording over them? If I were black, why should it not be my right to say "fuck those honkey bastards, I'm sitting in the FRONT of the bus!"?
Like Asimov's Hober Mallow said, it's a poor atom blaster that won't point both ways. Call me a "goddamned mick" and I'll simply laugh at you.
Free Martian Whores!
You don't have to fight to get punched.
Free Martian Whores!