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.
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
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.
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.
My WiFi is called "I_peed_in_the_hall"
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.
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?"
I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a joke.
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.
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.
I'm so glad my router's SSID is 'serious business'. Because apparently that's what the internet is.
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
...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
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.
Festivus actually pre-dates Seinfeld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus
Best one I've seen is "paracetemoxyfrusobendroneomycin" (a ficticious drug which cures almost everything, and causes most side-effects)
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
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?
Don't make it your SSID.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
It's also possible to be anti-Zionist (i.e. disagreeing with the legality of the state of Israel) without being anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic - even though any argument against Israel is immediately branded as such.
Listen to my latest album here
Also it is apparently better to keep the fact one is racist private, vs. letting them be public about it, so everyone knows that they are racists.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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
Why the "religion" tag? Is everything that slashdotters don't like "religion" now?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Are you just now realizing that some of our first amendment rights have eroded in the US?
First amendment hasn't meant "You can say whatever you want no matter what" for a long time. Do you think it would be OK for me to write "Death to all " on the side of my house, and expect not to have legal problems? How about painting "I am planning to kill Obama" on the side of your car and driving around? Expect to have problems? What about walking around with a sign that said "Ask me for instructions on manufacturing bio-terror weapons"?
Is setting your WiFi SSID to something considered "illegal speech" different than painting it on the side of your house?
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...
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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......"
I prefer Jeremiah Peabody's Polyunsaturated Quick-Dissolving Fast-Acting Pleasant-Tasting Green and Purple Pills
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
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!".
Nobody would believe that The Police are anybody's favorite band.
My cousin's neighbor's SSID is 8===D
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
Someone probably used a default password on the device and changed it to something that would call attention to the poor security. Not a great choice of words, but it seems to have drawn attention. If the router allows changes over a wireless connection, then such person will probably never be found since they could have made the change from anywhere in the area.
I've never had any interest in in-car bluetooth.
Until now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
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.
Yes, but it wouldn't scan as well when used in a spoof of "supercallifragelisticexpialidocious", which was the origin.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Seriously, the first paragraph of TFA states the SSID: “F--- All Jews and N----”. I assume they used "Fuck" and "Niggers" in reality.
Sorry, Damitol was trademarked years ago. So was Fukit, Skrewit, and my personal favorite: Getoverit.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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
I read that as "comb over" (which still works for CS)
sag
I was going to name our something similar by my wife objected, so ours is "Please Go Away".
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
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.
I'm pretty sure it was a prank by someone that has nothing to do with the place. How much you want to bet the router login/password was "admin/admin"? People that don't change their router login and password are why we can't have nice things...
What if it was owned by a porn company and that was simply their mission statement?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
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.
As an ex-Brit, I can tell you that there's no real strong wish for a "British state" there (I assume you meant that rather than English) - self government, yes, but on the basis of those who live in Britain, not simply people who trace their heritage to King Arthur or, for that matter, members of the Church of England. Britain's mostly fine with immigration, and the desire is that people who come in join in with the community, practice good citizenship, and contribute culturally and economically. While the Church of England has a constitutional position in United Kingdom Government, the UK government does not, in practice, allow it to control UK policy, or discriminate against those who live under its dictates.
In fact, countries that have decided to govern in support of one group of people who live there over another has, in fact, always been condemned in recent International history, with the exception of Israel, and kinda-sorta the Vatican.
Personally speaking, I think the idea of a large piece of land with people living on it since birth being given over to a "race" or, slightly less evily, those who practice a specific religion, is distasteful. The government of that land needs to represent the people who live there, not a particular group. I understand the sentiment that the Jews are a special case in that they've suffered centuries of discrimination, ultimately resulting on pogroms and the holocaust, but I'm not convinced that the right way to correct an injustice and deal with centuries of hatred is to create a new injustice. I am not, personally, a Zionist.
All of which is somewhat beside the point. With few exceptions, the legitimacy of the state of Israel is not questioned by those being smeared. The people who are branded "anti-semitic" are rarely, actually, anti-Zionist. What they generally criticize are:
1. The policies of the State of Israel, with particular regard to its treatment of a group of people who were born on land, and whose parents and grandparents, were born on land, now controlled by Israel.
2. The unqualified support given by some US politicians to Israel's security, on occasion apparently at the expense of the US itself.
These criticisms, even when qualified with a general feeling that "The Jews have been discriminated against for centuries, they deserve somewhere they can consider a safe home", cause writers who state them to be branded anti-semitic. The end result is damaging to our discourse and our ability to do the right things. And it's arguable that, in the end, the mentality does not help Israel in the slightest. In the long run, without pressure to move forward, Israel risks becoming a South Africa.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
They need to set a better password on that router.
Baby Jesus isn't the lord of people who celebrate Festivus instead of Christmas. It's much more belittling of them to insist that Baby Jesus is their lord when it ain't.
--
make install -not war
Argument from etymology is a fallacy. Words can mean something different from what they once did, or something different from the sum of their parts. Simply because the term "anti-semitic" contains the element "semitic" does not mean it must or should refer to anyone in particular beyond what it is commonly agreed to mean.
A look at the OED entry for "anti-semitism" will show that from the very first attestations, the term "anti-semitism" referred specifically to sentiment against the Jewish people. The term never made any refer to another peoples of Semitic language, culture or ancestry, and it never made any claim about the genetics of the Jewish people to which it refers.
Science, bitches. Saussure recognized l'arbitraire du signe over a century ago. You might want to get with the times.
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
Mine is "Homeopathic Wi-Fi".
The stronger the signal you have, the slower the connection goes.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
The POLICE is my favorite band, you insensitive clod!
No, "anti-semetic" has always meant "anti-Jewish", not including just anyone who's "Semitic".
--
make install -not war
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.
Don't mistake my nit picks. Your grammar leads your thought process and logic to the wrong conclusion. Religious beliefs may always be personal, but to say they must be *private* (as in not shared) which is what you mean, is absurd. Christianity demands communion (more than one person), which requires the use of the word "our" in the context of fellow Christians, not fellow Slashdotters. To use "my" in this context *would* be arrogant. (and factually wrong). Because it would assign a level of exclusiveness and superiority. Your response is typical of people who believe in freedom of speech until it conflicts with their own ideologies. People that feign offense at the very mention of any religion usually reveal their lack of substance and understanding in short order. The fact that OP was making a joke makes this whole thread even more hilarious.
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".
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.
He said "our". His, mine, my preacher's. You are not one of us, by your own speech, so you can safely disregard his message. It wasn't pointed at you.
You are, however, welcome to join if you wish, and free to remain apart.
Free Martian Whores!
He means they are holding cell phones to their ears, illegally. The part in parenthesis "(illegally here)" is a qualifier for what follows.
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.
The best I've seen, in my apartment building, is "CrappyApartment".
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.
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.
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.
And the number of people who knew what it was went from 40 people to 40 million people when the episode aired. So for 999,999 out of 1,000,000 people, the term "from a sitcom" is appropriate.
From your link: "Festivus was conceived by writer Dan O'Keefe and was celebrated by his family as early as 1966. The holiday was later introduced into popular culture by O'Keefe's screenwriter son Daniel on an episode of Seinfeld."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Triopenin.
Triopenin is gentle, non-habit-forming, aids in soothing muscles and liberating stiff, painful joints. Soon, you're handling life again, feeling better, and getting a firm grasp on the situation.
Triopenin -- get your hands working again. Now with the new childproof safety cap.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
My brother named his "Pretty Fly For A WiFi" which I thought was pretty clever.
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.