Posted on 08/13/2011 4:02:31 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
SAN FRANCISCO -An illegal, Orwellian violation of free-speech rights? Or just a smart tactic to protect train passengers' safety from rowdy would-be demonstrators during a busy evening commute?
The question resonated Saturday in San Francisco and beyond as details emerged of Bay Area Rapid Transit officials' decision to cut off underground cell phone service for a few hours at some stations Thursday. Commuters at stations from downtown to the city's main airport were affected as BART officials sought to tactically thwart a planned protest over the recent fatal shooting of a 45-year-old man by transit police.
Two days later, the move had civil rights and legal experts questioning the agency's move, and drew backlash from one transit board member who was taken aback by the decision.
"I'm just shocked that they didn't think about the implications of this. We really don't have the right to be this type of censor," said Lynette Sweet, who serves on BART board. "In my opinion, we've let the actions of a few people affect everybody. And that's not fair."
Similar questions of censorship have arisen in recently days as Britain's government put the idea of curbing social media services on the table in response to several nights of widespread looting and violence in London and other English cities. Police claim that young criminals used Twitter and Blackberry instant messages to coordinate looting sprees in riots.
(Excerpt) Read more at aolnews.com ...
And if BART had not taken preemptive action in the face of a known threat, and the worst had happened, then the criticism would be unending that they failed to act.
The truth is that “citizens” planned to disrupt the service, and rather than shut down all together, BART did what they needed to do to minimize disruption.
I say “Well done”!
Whose “free speech rights” are being violated? Does the First Amaendment guarantee the “right” to cell phone service?
Whose “free speech rights” are being violated? Does the First Amendment guarantee the “right” to cell phone service?
I wonder how Ms. Sweet feels about the fairness of disarming the law-abiding because of the actions of the lawless (which actually is a constitutional infringement, unlike the failure to provide free cell access)?
Does the State have the right to silence speech? To silence channels of communication?
This is exactly the same as if the State decided to smash printing presses and burn books 20 years ago.
If someone does violence, arrest them and throw the book at them. But don't infringe upon the First Amendment!
Fantastic idea! Here’s another one: Let’s get rid of all the guns. That way, gun violence will no longer exist!
Cell phones are not the problem here. But hey, when you’re Holder’s people you get to do what you want!
I pay my phone bill, so my service better not be shut down because of the threat of thuggery. The cell phones are not to blame here, just as guns are not to blame for gun violence.
“Whose “free speech rights” are being violated? Does the First Amaendment guarantee the “right” to cell phone service?”
Your post is myopic, at best. I’ve been on 24 hour emergency call for 28 years. So are doctors, surgeons, etc.. Your view could cost lives! Same thing for laws banning talking on cell phones when driving. My cell is only for emergency calls. Exceptions must be made.
If the state owns its own printing presses and decides to shut them down or restrict access, I see no first amendment issues. It is my understanding that the cell phone service is provided by Bart equipment. If Bart wants to shut it down, or shut down its intercom system if someone took it over, then how is that a free speech issue?
According to the Supreme Court the state (i.e. the public) does own the right to broadcast on the public airwaves, including cell. That is why they auction and license them to private carriers. So, free speech does not include a right to broadcast in the radio spectrum.
Agree with it or not, right or wrong, that is what the law says.
Has America really become so attached to this cell phone phenomenon that we’ve forgotten what it was like to be required to find a coin-operated telephone to make a call, or - gasp! - wait until one reached home or the office to make that call?
So if for example, there is an attempt at some sort of terrorist attack (e.g., Sept 11 is the ten year anniversary) and the gov could, theoretically, exercise the internet kill switch AND a cell phone block to keep terrorists from communicating. Would be kinda surprising to those caught in the middle.
I’m sure that Zer0 is taking notes for election day.
So the federal government can not legislate to prevent peaceable assembly or freedom of speech. I do not think that bart is part of the federal congress. And I do not think that the phone ban prevents freedom of speech in the sense that people are prevented from expressing whatever view they like...it only prevents a particular medium of speech being employed at a certain area. Nor does it impede any peaceable assembly...so even if the bart system were considered part of the federal congress (which seems a stretch to me) I don't see how its a freedom of speech issue.
So with the threat of disruptions and violence at Bart stations they shut down the ability to call 911 for help.
Glad they know the train schedules are more important than the riders personal safety./s
61% of the world population have cell phones. That's over 4 billion.
In June 2011, 234 million Americans 13 & older used a cell phone. That's equal to one cell phone for every adult in the United States.
Can you find coin-operated telephones these days? Did you forget about taking emergency calls? Phones aren't "just" phones either.
Benito would be proud.
Give it a rest.
The marxist idiots can have their "right" back as soon as they exit the station, and spew all the comrade rhetoric they want.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to make flash mobs' planning and execution any easier than it already is.
What did you do before reliable sell phones and universal coverage?
If I remember right, pagers worked well, and that's 40 year old technology.
Straw man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.