As I sit here playing with my wirelessly-networked Linux laptop and perusing the other nineteen networks that are within range of my wireless card, a thought occurred to me. One of the networks is unsecured, which means I could easily get on it. Not that I want to use someone else’s bandwidth, mind you, but suppose I did the same thing deliberately that the hapless (at least so I assume) owner of the unsecured network is doing. Just set up a router and leave it unsecured, free for anyone in the world to use.
It might be foolish, but it is a means of communication, right? Communication being speech, does that not mean that my conduct would be protected by the First Amendment? If have a right to put up a public bulletin board for “community messages” in my front yard (which I do), then I think I have the same right to allow anyone to use my bandwidth. I realize I might be violating the terms of the ISP, but that’s another issue. Most of the posts about this issue speak in terms of the the theft of bandwidth (and opinions vary), but my concern is whether the state could make this a crime; i.e. whether there’s a legal right under the First Amendment to give it away. I think there is. (If a city can give away free Wifi, then why can’t a private citizen?)
Only a crackpot would do this, but legal issues often turn on the whims of crackpots.
MORE: Here’s a typical news report warning the public about the danger of sharing WIFI:
But what I’m talking about is not stealing, but giving. Simply providing free service to anyone. All that’s needed is an account and a router. Is it a bad thing? If it free speech?
A right to deliberately share a free speech forum?
by
Tags:
Comments
5 responses to “A right to deliberately share a free speech forum?”
I remember reading about the viability of smaller hub networks that interconnect without the need for a Large Cable Company. I think they already have a large web on the West Coast (but that sounds like Zombieland talk!)
In all that has been going on with our current Administration, it’s been my hope that the hackers and geeks have a workaround for the coming crackdown on the Internet.
But more to your point: if they make the case that Free Speech is so powerful and life-impacting that only professionals should be allowed to practice it, then, like the medical profession, quackery would be illegal. But it still wouldn’t stop the NYT from malpractice.
But as the owner of that bandwidth, you may become liable for acts on that bandwidth. A poisoned gift, to give away bandwidth.
But as the owner of that bandwidth, you may become liable for acts on that bandwidth.
I know that I may be in practice, but in theory should I be liable for the speech and/or actions of other people? Isn’t that like saying I’m responsible for, say, a death threat or sexual solicitation issued by one commenter to another at this blog?
Did anyone find the incessant use of that keyboard scene with combination of mushy typing (modern soft-touch keyboard) and loud clicking (that clearly is not coming from the person typing) to be more than a little annoying? They got their money’s worth from that clip and then some.
On the other hand, I did get one useful bit from it: So, WEP is passe, and WPA2 is where it’s at? Ok, now to check all our devices to see if it is supported….