|
 
Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! Please  login or  register to post messages and view our members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, encrypted messages, file attachments, board customizations, and much more!
|
 Boom
analyst/therapist
Registered: 06/16/04
Posts: 10,599
Loc: US and A
|
 Wireless network naming conventions?
#8530625 - 06/16/08 04:54 PM (5 months, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Does the name of the network have to pass FCC decency laws or whatever?
|
 Nephlyte
Misfortunate One
 
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 974
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
 Re: Wireless network naming conventions? [Re: Boom]
#8531281 - 06/16/08 07:57 PM (5 months, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Doubt it. If so, then all pornography you look at while logged onto the network would also be subject to decency laws.
But, you've inspired me. My next network that i set up will be called "Fuck the FCC"
--------------------
"To do right is to know what you want. Now when you are dissatisfied with yourself it's because you are after something you don't really want. What objects are you proposing to yourself? Are they the objects you really value? If they are not, you are cheating yourself. I don't meant that if you chose to pursue the objects you most value, you will attain them; of course not. Your experience will tell you that. But success in getting after much labor what you really don't care for is the bitterest and most ridiculous failure." -George Santayana
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 6,924
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Wireless network naming conventions? [Re: Nephlyte]
#8532138 - 06/16/08 11:55 PM (5 months, 4 days ago) |
|
|
It is subject to decency laws, and much of it is likely allready illegal, including what's posted in OTD. Its only that those laws haven't often been enforced to my knowledge and the pornography industry pretty much ignores them.
The only concern would be whether it is subject to the FCC's enforcment and regulatory jurisdiction.
And there's a difference between something like someone pooping on someone and a vulgar message in a network like "fuck the FCC" The later clearly conveys a message, and is expressive and covered by the first amendment, while it would be difficult to justify the necessity of the obscenity in the second example in conveying whatever substantial message the first conveys.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 16,763
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 16 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Wireless network naming conventions? [Re: johnm214]
#8532657 - 06/17/08 05:26 AM (5 months, 4 days ago) |
|
|
> It is subject to decency laws, and much of it is likely allready illegal, including what's posted in OTD.
Ah yes, the 1st amendment... keep forgetting about that one...
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of decent speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Glad the founding fathers were thinking ahead by restricting that freedom garbage to only decent things as defined by the government. I can't wait until they decide that it is indecent to insult or offend the government.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Boom
analyst/therapist
Registered: 06/16/04
Posts: 10,599
Loc: US and A
|
Re: Wireless network naming conventions? [Re: Seuss]
#8532660 - 06/17/08 05:29 AM (5 months, 4 days ago) |
|
|
I bet they didn't see the awesomeness though of my network name being viewed by a synagogue and a condo complex nearby. Damn, that could have been good 
|
usr
Interested.
Registered: 09/16/07
Posts: 131
Loc: United States
Last seen: 24 days, 15 hours
|
Re: Wireless network naming conventions? [Re: Boom]
#8532906 - 06/17/08 08:46 AM (5 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
As far as I know, there are no laws governing what can and cannot be in your SSID (Wireless network name).
And you know you can set the SSID not to broadcast, so no one will be able to see your network unless they specifically know the name, right?
You can! 
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 16,763
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 16 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Wireless network naming conventions? [Re: usr]
#8533175 - 06/17/08 10:16 AM (5 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
> As far as I know, there are no laws governing what can and cannot be in your SSID (Wireless network name).
I would be careful making that claim. No, there is no law that specifically states the SSID of an 802.11 wireless network must comply with blah blah blah, but there are generically worded laws regarding decency and obscenity. If the FCC can twist the definition of a broadcast to include an SSID of an 802.11 wireless network, then a profane SSID could land somebody in trouble.
Personally, I think the FCC is full of shit when they claim that the 1st ammendment doesn't protect obscene speech. I fail to see any such exceptions in the first ammendment when I read it. It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." It doesn't say anything about decent speech, obscene speech, annoying speech, or anything else.
From the FCC website:
Quote:
It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. (See definitions}. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The FCC has authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license or deny a renewal application. In addition, violators of the law, if convicted in a federal district court, are subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment for not more than two years.
Quote:
What makes material “obscene?” Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.
I still fail to see how:
Quote:
Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts.
... meshes with ...
Quote:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 6,924
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Wireless network naming conventions? [Re: Seuss]
#8534185 - 06/17/08 03:57 PM (5 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
> It is subject to decency laws, and much of it is likely allready illegal, including what's posted in OTD.
Ah yes, the 1st amendment... keep forgetting about that one...
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of decent speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Glad the founding fathers were thinking ahead by restricting that freedom garbage to only decent things as defined by the government. I can't wait until they decide that it is indecent to insult or offend the government.
I'm sure you realize I was talking about the law as it stands, not what a reasonable interpretation is. While there is some merit in the current scheme, I agree it is way too vague and underinclusive. I think there should only have to be some identifiable expressive element in the work for it to qualify.
I was just saying that many people view pornography and things like poop porn to be protected speach, while it really isn't under the current scheme, unless it is making some political or other message.
Quote:
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
I don't think much pornography would be protected under this standard.
Under federal law, much of what is thought to be protected by some, porn et cet, really is barred by the statutes and probably wouldn't find protection under current 1st amendment understanding:
Quote:
Whoever knowingly transports or travels in, or uses a facility or means of, interstate or foreign commerce or an interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) [1] of the Communications Act of 1934) in or affecting such commerce for the purpose of sale or distribution of any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
The transportation as aforesaid of two or more copies of any publication or two or more of any article of the character described above, or a combined total of five such publications and articles, shall create a presumption that such publications or articles are intended for sale or distribution, but such presumption shall be rebuttable.
18 USC § 1465
I really think the line should be drawn that obscene speech can't be forced upon an unwilling participant, and so you can't erect an obscene poster against your building but you could sell that poster to those interested.
|
ToTheSummit
peregrinus
Registered: 08/22/99
Posts: 6,924
Loc: Las Vegas
Last seen: 11 hours, 2 minutes
|
Re: Wireless network naming conventions? [Re: Seuss]
#8534513 - 06/17/08 05:24 PM (5 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
There you go with that pesky constitution again Seuss. 
--------------------
You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!
| |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
