Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wireless Networking Censorship Crime Government Networking Your Rights Online Idle

Police Investigate Offensive Wi-Fi Network Name 890

Posted by Soulskill
from the sounds-like-a-rough-neighborhood dept.
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?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Police Investigate Offensive Wi-Fi Network Name

Comments Filter:
  • Name revealed (Score:1, Insightful)

    by squiggleslash (241428) on Friday January 20, 2012 @09:50AM (#38760288) Homepage Journal

    Apparently the SSID of the WAP was "IHaveSomeConcernsAboutIsraeliGovernmentPolicy" [salon.com]

    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.

  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Friday January 20, 2012 @09:53AM (#38760316)

    Its now illegal to dislike anything in America.

  • by scottbomb (1290580) on Friday January 20, 2012 @09:55AM (#38760336) Journal

    Except Republicans, conservatives, Christians, people who respect the constitution. They're all free game.

  • by EmagGeek (574360) <gterich@aol.LISPcom minus language> on Friday January 20, 2012 @09:59AM (#38760368) Journal

    You're still allowed to hate whitey, especially if whitey has any wealth to speak of. That's perfectly okay, because wealthy whitey is the source of all of the world's ills.

  • Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Skarecrow77 (1714214) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:02AM (#38760410)

    Bastard. you actually made me go read TFA.

    After reading it, I'm about 99% sure that what they've got there isn't a real racist. What they've got is some /btard or the like who named the router that for amusement value, and succeeded in trolling the public beyond his wildest dreams.

  • Re:Ya know.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scutter (18425) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:02AM (#38760414) Journal

    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.

  • by NetTripper (2557374) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:02AM (#38760416)
    America is slowly sliding into the abyss of dictatorship. This is utterly pathetic. Granted the name may have been offensive, but shouldn't we as citizens be allowed to name property we own and use anything we choose? It's like if you had a nick name for X item in your life. And the police found out that name and some how considered it offensive and criminal. I do not think it should be criminal in nature. I feel it should be more civil related, regarding court proceedings. Yes again the American police state rearing it's ugly head!
  • Re:Name revealed (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:02AM (#38760418)

    I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a joke.

  • Re:SSID (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cowboy76Spain (815442) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:05AM (#38760448)

    Another reason to have a closed network. Not so much a security issue, but avoids snooping authorities. Sure they could wardrive, but at least one has a possible affermative defense.

    As it stands, this type of thing is clearly indicates immature people who crave attention, much like people who put huge subwoofers in their car, or loud exhausts on their bikes, or over the top and distracting decorations on their lawns. I support the police giving them the attention they desire.

    Who says that it was the government snooping? TFA says it was a passer by who caught it in her phone. Please do not invent thinks out of thin air.

    As if it is worth investigating, well... The test should be "If someone would write the same thing on his own property, would we punish him?" If it is yes, then it should investigating because he is painting it every time his WiFi broadcast. If it is not, then what would you when you find him? Tell him to please change the SSID?

    So, mostly it should be a question of it falls under free speech or not, and act in consequence. The fact that the data is not transmitted with visible light but with higher frequencies is irrelevant.

    Also, is it too much asking to The Fine Editor to put less emotional summary. If he has already decided that it is a waste of time, no sense in us being allowed to comment. Just put the text and disable the commenting, if that is what he/she wants. This site quality is going down fast.

  • by Sockatume (732728) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:10AM (#38760514)

    Your freedoms end where other people begin. I mean, there's an incredibly obvious distinction to be made between me feeling that your post is sophomoric and inane, and me broadcasting the notion with a megaphone.

  • Re:Ya know.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:12AM (#38760550) Journal

    Everyone's a jackass to someone. If the First Amendment doesn't protect jackasses, it won't protect you.

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:15AM (#38760600) Homepage Journal
    Tell me about it...exactly WHEN did it become against the law to be offensive?

    Freedom of speech, pretty much by definition trumps freedom from being offended.

  • by TheNinjaroach (878876) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:16AM (#38760608)

    Except Republicans, conservatives, Christians, people who respect the constitution. They're all free game.

    You almost had a point there until you got around to trolling with the "people who respect the constitution" part.

    And yeah, a lot of people hate a lot of the so-called values that many Republicans, conservatives and Christians have been pushing these days. But that coin has two ugly sides to it, so let's not pretend like there's anything unique going on here.

  • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:18AM (#38760634)

    I mean, there's an incredibly obvious distinction to be made between me feeling that your post is sophomoric and inane, and me broadcasting the notion with a megaphone.

    Yes, there is.

    And BOTH are constitutionally protected in the USA.

  • by Bigbutt (65939) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:19AM (#38760642) Homepage Journal

    Don't make it your SSID.

    [John]

  • Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CowboyBob500 (580695) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:20AM (#38760664) Homepage
    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.
  • by Nidi62 (1525137) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:20AM (#38760672)

    there's an incredibly obvious distinction to be made between me feeling that your post is sophomoric and inane, and me broadcasting the notion with a megaphone.

    Yes, but unless you are violating a local noise ordnance, it is still not illegal for you to do so, nor does it violate anyone's rights. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended.

  • Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jellomizer (103300) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:22AM (#38760694)
    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.
     
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:22AM (#38760698)

    Since when being anti-semite is a crime in US ?

  • by mjr167 (2477430) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:24AM (#38760712)
    It has to be a male whitey though...
  • by digitig (1056110) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:24AM (#38760718)
    Why the "religion" tag? Is everything that slashdotters don't like "religion" now?
  • Re:SSID (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dkleinsc (563838) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:30AM (#38760798) Homepage

    Another way of putting it: A private citizen putting a sign reading "Romanes ite domum" on their front lawn is perfectly fine. The mayor putting "Romanes ite domum" on the lawn of the town hall in a town that's in the middle of a zoning dispute involving the Catholic Church, not so much.

  • by Nidi62 (1525137) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:34AM (#38760848)

    I guess I'm not sure if it's a crime to speak about hating any race/gender/sexual orientation/religion, or if the only risk is the civil suit that you might get handed to you. And if it IS a crime to simply talk about how you hate them, why the fuck is that so?

    It is not a crime. It only becomes a crime when the hate crosses the line between speech and action. If it were illegal, every KKK/neo-nazi member would have already been arrested. Hell, even Obama's minister from Chicago would have been arrested (I'm sure we all remember him). And it needs to stay this way. As much as I would like to silence all the KKK's, or the Westboros (I refuse to ever use the words "baptist" or "church" to describe them), it really is a slippery slope. If we make what they do illegal, how long will it be before any kind of offensive word brings a criminal sentence?

    On another note, racism/sexism/etc will only exist as long as people get offended. As long as there is a line that can be crossed, these issues will continue to exist. People will continue to do it exactly BECAUSE it provokes responses. People get offended because they let themselves be offended. Other posters said jokingly that the only people that you are allowed to hate are white, male, republican, and christian. In a way, it's true, simply because we (I am roughly 2.5 of those 4 things) do not let those things offend us. It has no effect on us. Aim the same sort of vitriol to black people, or Jews, or homosexuals that is constantly aimed at WASPs, and you would unleash a firestorm.

  • by DarkOx (621550) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:35AM (#38760864) Journal

    it's hard as hell to figure out the line between someone exercising their right for free speech and someone inciting violence

    No its not, statist ass holes want to propagandize you into thinking that is the case but its not true. inciting violence pretty much means a direct threat of some kind, which *IS* assault, or telling someone else to make such a threat or take such action.

    Unless you are actually out there saying something equivalent to "lets lynch the ...." its not inciting anything. Even "I think the ... should all be lynched." is not inciting anything.

    The simple fact is hate crimes, and hate speech laws are nothing but immoral censorship. That is right anyone who supports hate ... whatever laws in my option is just someone who is against freedom.

    Every crime that is "hate" crime is a crime in and of itself already. Assault, battery, etc are all crimes already. They are crimes because they violate the rights and security of others. They are not more or less wrong because of the perpetrators reasons. All people are equal, its no more wrong for me to beat you because I hate what you are than it is for me to beat you for any other reason.

    This is supposed to be a nation of free people, that SHOULD include the freedom of some to hate. What its does not include is the freedom to act on that hate when it violates the rights and freedoms of others.

  • Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tsingi (870990) <graham DOT rick AT gmail DOT com> on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:38AM (#38760906)

    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.

  • by Tsingi (870990) <graham DOT rick AT gmail DOT com> on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:43AM (#38760976)

    Except Republicans, conservatives, Christians, people who respect the constitution. They're all free game.

    You almost had a point there until you got around to trolling with the "people who respect the constitution" part. And yeah, a lot of people hate a lot of the so-called values that many Republicans, conservatives and Christians have been pushing these days. But that coin has two ugly sides to it, so let's not pretend like there's anything unique going on here.

    If you put Conservatives, Republicans and Christians in one group, and "people who respect the constitution" in another group, then I think you've covered everyone. (with very little overlap)

  • Re:Ya know.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anrego (830717) * on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:44AM (#38760982)

    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!".

  • by Shakrai (717556) * on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:44AM (#38761006) Journal

    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?

  • Re:Name revealed (Score:2, Insightful)

    by NemoinSpace (1118137) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:44AM (#38761010) Homepage Journal
    And if he had used the word "my" you would have accused him of the same thing.
    Christianity is open source - you're free not to use it.
  • by squiggleslash (241428) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:48AM (#38761078) Homepage Journal

    "Rich whitey" is essentially the ruling class. If they weren't ruling, they wouldn't be rich in the first place. There's no entity out there randomly doling out cash and letting you keep it. And the white bit... well, with one or two exceptions, that's just how it's working out.

    Should we "hate" (or rather, criticize) them? I don't "hate" many of these guys but I don't think there's anything wrong with distrusting, criticizing, and attacking those in power.

    In fact, unless they're working to spread the power down to all of us, I see it as a moral duty.

  • by kelemvor4 (1980226) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:54AM (#38761180)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:56AM (#38761212)

    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?

  • Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SmilingBoy (686281) on Friday January 20, 2012 @10:57AM (#38761230)
    Seriously, the first paragraph of TFA states the SSID: “F--- All Jews and N----”. I assume they used "Fuck" and "Niggers" in reality.
  • Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sun (104778) <shachar@shemesh.biz> on Friday January 20, 2012 @11:01AM (#38761284) Homepage

    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

  • by pla (258480) on Friday January 20, 2012 @11:07AM (#38761372) Journal
    That should silence you assholes posting like it's no big deal or something.

    Still no big deal - Sticks and stones, "get butch, bitch". And, I'd rather know my enemies than have them quietly work to sabotage our attempts at civil society.


    or, more likely, someone messed with an improperly secured router.

    I will agree completely that this one point makes the present issue comparable to an act of vandalism. And thanks to a massive overreaction by everyone involved, some 3th-rate digital "tagger" has gotten national media coverage of his stupid little prank. Congrats, he couldn't have dreamed of a more successful outcome.


    but you do not have a right to put a sign out on your lawn preaching hate speech

    Yes, actually, I do. I don't have the right to put such a sign on your lawn.

    Or do you not consider every church I pass on my way to work condemning me to an eternity in Hell as "hate speech"? Because I do, oddly enough, and the fact that they belong to an socially acceptable religion doesn't make a damned (no pun intended) bit of difference in that.
  • by DJRumpy (1345787) on Friday January 20, 2012 @11:14AM (#38761448)

    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.

  • free speech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scharkalvin (72228) on Friday January 20, 2012 @11:15AM (#38761452) Homepage

    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.

  • by AaxelB (1034884) on Friday January 20, 2012 @11:17AM (#38761482)

    Please tell me a time when in my lifetime when it was not considered politically correct to criticize Christians in the U.S.? Please name the comedian who makes a living belittling atheists? Or even has that as a significant part of their routine?

    I think comedians' acts support the exact opposite point from the one you're trying to make, since a lot of comedy is about reversals of expectations. Comedians don't hate on atheists (or, to some extent, women, minorities [unless they're a member of that minority], poor people, the physically/mentally challenged, etc.) because it's not very funny. It's not that it's too un-PC, but these groups get belittled all the time in real life (it's pervasive throughout our society), and it's just not that funny to see a comedian do the same thing.

    For example, it's widely accepted as funny, across many disparate cultures, to see a man lose a game or a fight to a woman, or to see a man dressed as a woman, because it's a reversal of what you'd normally expect -- a man "lowered" to an inferior status, that of a woman. However, it's not very funny to see a man beat a woman in a fight or win a game against a woman, generally. Does this mean that society is biased toward women, since comedies tend to show them with the upper hand? Of course not, it shows the exact opposite, since it's funny when the woman has the upper hand.

    Note: this is all hastily written and full of generalizations. I'm not stating anything about what you or I personally find funny, but more society-wide observations. Also, I realize we were talking about christians/atheists; the male/female divide is more obvious and widespread, so it's easier to point out examples, but similar phenomena exist in both places.

  • by Magada (741361) on Friday January 20, 2012 @11:20AM (#38761520) Journal

    No there isn't. You cunt. Free speech is free speech, my (and your) right to a megaphone trumps anyone's wish to not be inconvenienced by our speaking freely.

  • by Defenestrar (1773808) on Friday January 20, 2012 @11:21AM (#38761532)

    You're probably trolling or baiting here:

    Christians are fucking morons, there is no god. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, etc, throw them all in a pit of fire.

    Anyone believing in fucking sand dwelling nomadic fairy tails today, needs to give up their right to use technology and science.

    But, on the off chance that these are your genuine feelings, perhaps you would favor a boycott of science and technology which was contributed to by Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, etc...

    Have you ever heard the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"? Where do you suppose the giants thought they were standing?

  • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Friday January 20, 2012 @11:29AM (#38761628)

    You might want to pick better examples to make your point. Eminent domain for malls is pretty off.

    A mall is a public place. In the case in question, just compensation was provided.

    That said, note that the Supremes didn't say that the taking in question was good, right, or proper. Merely that it wasn't forbidden by the Constitution.

    Note that the Constitution doesn't actually forbid very many things to the State goverrnments - it's mostly about forbidding things to the Federal government.

    Also note that in response, many States "clarified" (such a nice word for "quickly changed") their laws on eminent domain so that it couldn't happen again.

    Note that the phrase "so that it couldn't happen again" really means "so that it couldn't happen until we really need the tax revenue (or receive the appropriate bribes) again"....

  • Re:Name revealed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by squiggleslash (241428) on Friday January 20, 2012 @11:30AM (#38761630) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Toonol (1057698) on Friday January 20, 2012 @11:45AM (#38761840)
    I'm not a Christian, but that's an unfair criticism. The bible explicitly tells Christians that the laws from the old testament are no longer applicable.
  • by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Friday January 20, 2012 @12:02PM (#38762118)

    So God basically said "Hey, ignore all those things I commanded you about earlier, I changed my mind?" I thought the word of God was immutable? Did God make a mistake? Was he misquoted?

    And religious people wonder why Atheists don't take them seriously...

    For the record, I believe everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that comes with the caveat that everyone is entitled to mock them if they so choose. You can't have it both ways.

  • Re:Name revealed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NemoinSpace (1118137) on Friday January 20, 2012 @12:11PM (#38762284) Homepage Journal
    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".
  • by DJRumpy (1345787) on Friday January 20, 2012 @12:13PM (#38762318)

    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.

  • by Shakrai (717556) * on Friday January 20, 2012 @12:23PM (#38762526) Journal

    Have you ever been credibly attacked by being called a slur on Jews?

    I've been called all sorts of things; you try living in the Bible Belt as a Yankee Agnostic Jew/Native-American and get back to me on how fun it is. It still doesn't change the old adage about sticks and stones.

    The rabbi and family firebombed nearby a couple weeks ago won't be protected by "thicker skin"

    Firebombing is violence and already illegal regardless of the underlying motivation.

    But they will be protected by intolerance of the intimidation that happens much more often by racist words.

    If you want to be intolerant towards racism be my guest; I'll stand beside you. If you want to legislate against it while trampling all over the First Amendment I'm getting off the bus and opposing you with every means at my disposal. Once we get into the business of regulating what kinds of speech are protected we no longer have free speech. I sincerely hope you see the pitfalls of the Government prohibiting speech that represents a minority opinion. And please, for the love of $deity, do not make the tired old "fire in a theater" analogy.

  • by kelemvor4 (1980226) on Friday January 20, 2012 @01:09PM (#38763328)

    Suburban NYC-area where people are getting firebombed [jstandard.com] these days by people who say what that WiFi SSID said are not in a carefully crafted bubble. They're in the real world, where those kinds of statements are part of the violence.

    It's you in your Slashdot posting pod who is in a carefully crafted bubble.

    Those kinds of statements, along with any other kind of statement are not part of violence, they're statements (as you stated). They're also protected by the U.S. Constitution, and the UN Declaration of Human rights. I know, I know.. lots of folks these days only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said... C'est la vie.

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday January 20, 2012 @01:17PM (#38763508)

    Your reply seems to have made his point. You suppose that because his view on atheism is different than your view of it that therefor he is wrong.

    His point was that most atheists treat atheism as a religion. I don't see how spelling out that most atheists literally don't give a damn supports his point in any fashion what so ever.

    Then go so far as to imply that while you can understand both points of view, he can't possibly do the same.

    Hey, you are welcome to come up with your own explanation as for why the very religious seem to consistently describe atheism as a religion despite what most atheists have to say about the matter. Seems me to that taking a religionist's description of atheism as gospel is about as reasonable as saying that Frankling Graham is an authortative export on islam.

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday January 20, 2012 @01:33PM (#38763754)

    Atheism is an extremely broad term. Some atheists do positively assert that there is no god, and the real extreme of that group will organize in ways that can be compared to organized religion, but those people are quite few. Similarly agnosticism is a broad term too with lots of practical overlap in the group of atheists. But there is a subtle difference between the two simplest definitions of the terms, i.e. "the question of a god's existence is not answerable" (agnosticism) and "I don't care about the question of a god's existence" (atheism).

  • by Nadaka (224565) on Friday January 20, 2012 @01:33PM (#38763758)

    In practice people who call themselves conservatives tend to be very much against the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th 10th, 14th, etc.

    1st: they are in favor of limiting expression by limiting the rights or outright banning of homosexuals and polygamists on purely religious grounds. They are in favor of limiting religious expression by endorsing only specific christian faiths. They are in favor of limiting the press and expression through censorship of "obscene" material as well as eliminating fair use.

    3rd: no one bothers to object to the third

    4th: Tough on crime conservatives want to repeal due process and the necessity of warrants.

    5th: Torture and indefinite confinement to exact confessions, and forcing the revelation of encryption passwords are all part of the tough on crime conservative agenda.

    6th: Telecom immunity violates the 6th by preventing people from sueing in response to the telecoms complicity in illegal surveillance. Summary punishment without trial in copyright cases are being sought by conservatives in violation of the 6th.

    7th: Terrorism, enough said.

    8th: Torture, etc.

    9th: Conservatives very often fail to recognize that the enumerated rights of the constitution are not the totality of human rights.

    10th: Defense of Marriage act. Dozens others.

    14th: States rights advocates object to the 14th amendment preventing them from infringing on citizens rights.

    And yes, I am a liberal progressive. The right to self defense is critical in any imperfect society, and all societies will be imperfect to some degree. Besides that, responsible ownership and use of a firearm infringes on the rights of no one directly or indirectly, and by definition the liberal point of view will not interfere in that (though many self proclaimed liberals disagree). I also know that the conservative fascist jack booted thugs would love to stomp on my throat, I intend to shoot them before they get the chance.

  • Re:Name revealed (Score:2, Insightful)

    by unitron (5733) on Saturday January 21, 2012 @08:32AM (#38773304) Homepage Journal

    And now it means you said something AIPAC didn't like.

    Which has nothing to do with the thoroughly objectionable SSID on the router in the article.

    However, what they need to investigate is the idiot who obviously left the default password on the router, which is no doubt how a person of great immaturity was able to demonstrate their lack of imagination and the deficient parenting which they have received.

You can do this in a number of ways. IBM chose to do all of them. Why do you find that funny? -- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350

Working...