Comment by raganwald
14 years ago
Most of the “freedoms” people speak of are really freedoms from government interference. For example, “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply to a symphony hall that requires its patrons to be silent during performances, but it may restrict a government’s ability to enact anti-hate crime legislation.
In this case the more interesting issue is that a private entity disrupted telecommunications on its property without notice or warning. In addition to making it difficult for protesters to coördinate their actions, it also made it difficult for people to make unrelated calls, to report crimes, call 911, and so forth.
It might be legal, but I admit I find the idea very unsettling.
BART isn't a private entity, though, it's a government agency.
ETA a link to BART's discussion of its formation: http://bart.gov/about/history/index.aspx
Is BART a private entity, or are they state funded/run?
I've never been clear on this in most places I've been; I don't know if New York's MTA is part of the city, or if it's a private corporation entrusted with a public utility - and if it is, what are the ramifications?
Most subway systems are actually privately owned/operated, yet state funded entities. Or at least that's my understanding of many of them. The MTA and MBTA are this way I believe.
They're state funded/run given that their officials are voted into office.
If the BART police go around calling themselves "police", carrying side-arms and shooting people, they better be under the state. Plus, they have a ".gov" domain name.
Despite the Republicans wet dreams, we aren't at the stage (yet) where private companies shoot people who don't obey orders or resist.
I've only lived in SF for 2 weeks, so I wasn't sure if the BART/Muni stuff was public or privately owned.
Good point though about unrelated calls, 911, crimes, etc. Had something bad happened during that time I imagine they'd be in some (more) hot water right now.