San Francisco officials cut off phone signals to train passengers to thwart protest over police killing
We read:
"An illegal, Orwellian violation of free-speech rights? Or just a smart tactic to protect train passengers from rowdy would-be demonstrators during a busy evening commute?
Those are some of the questions being asked in San Francisco after officials of the Bay Area Rapid Transit cut off underground mobile phone signals at several stations for a few hours last Thursday.
Commuters at stations from downtown to near 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.
The decision has been questioned by civil rights and legal experts and drew backlash from one transit board member who was taken aback by the move.
"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's board of directors. "In my opinion, we've let the actions of a few people affect everybody. And that's not fair."
BART Deputy Police Chief Benson Fairow said the issue boiled down to the public's well-being. "It wasn't a decision made lightly. This wasn't about free speech. It was about safety," Mr Fairow told KTVU-TV on Friday.
BART's tactic drew immediate comparisons to authoritarianism, including acts by the former president of Egypt to squelch protests demanding an end to his rule. Authorities there cut internet and mobile phone services in the country for days earlier this year. He left office shortly thereafter.
Aaron Caplan, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specialises in free-speech issues, was equally critical, saying BART clearly violated the rights of demonstrators and other passengers.
Source
8 comments:
Once again, we're faced with that old question. Freedom or security. I'm sure it's not a difficult question for the Leftists who infest this Mexifornia city, the same city that is home to queen Polosi. The one question they never ask, or answer, is, how much freedom can you have if you have no security?
In a state that is controlled mostly by ultra-violent street gangs of blacks and illegals, one would think the choice is a simple one. You can't be very free if you're not safe to enjoy that freedom. But, we must remember this is San Francisco, a Leftist-filled rats nest where "freedom" (or the illusion thereof) trumps all else.
If i were the Chief of Police there, i would withdraw all my officers from the train stations so that the people can truly enjoy their "freedom". Then, just sit back and wait. There's nothing that turns a Leftist into a hard-core, Right-wing Conservative faster than a dose of reality.
They didn't jam the signals, they shut down their system that allows cellphones to operate on their property. I don't think any business should be forced to aid folks in protesting them!
That being said, it's still pretty hypocritical for San Francisco to be doing this when they do things like allow the pinko ladies to bring business to a halt at military recruitment centers!
"BARTclearly violated their free speech" How? Since when are cellular phones required for free speech. It sounds like there is plenty being said little or none with cell phones. The transit district is not required to provide the means of speech.
Something like this would probably ok during a bad situation such as a riot because it would be solely directed at actual criminal behavior. Unfortunately, this can be severely abused, so there should be some very strict guidelines about using such a procedure.
Cellphone entitlement must be part of free speech.
In Pensylvania they're given out free to welfare recipients.
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/free_cell_phones_are_civil_right_htTMcKQFrjdvyl9A6NHPdP
In related news... Apparently BART also refused to provide the demonstrators with bullhorns. The ACLU has issued the following statement, "We find it preposterous that the city refused to help organize the demonstration. This is a slippery slope. Next thing we know, they'll refuse to provide hot cocoa when it's cold outside."
Anon 9:03 hit the nail on the head. The governement is required to allow demonsrations; it's not required to assist them.
Who gets to decide what is moral?
Consider . . .
The fear is that phones will be used to organize a flash mob of hundreds of black teens.
Therefore, black teens should be prohibited from the ride.
That, of course, would violate our social morality.
Instead, authorities ban black teens from using cell phone. To make the ban acceptable, the net is broadened to include everyone.
It have the advantage of Jim Crow with the disadvantage of punishing those who not participate in a violent flash mob.
What about someone having a heart attack while down there and is unable to reach emergency services and died or sustained more grievous injuries had it not taken so long to get in contact with emergency services.. I think the city would be culpable and it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech..
Post a Comment