Comment by nettdata
14 years ago
Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem with this?
They provided a cel phone repeater as an amenity/courtesy to their passengers. It's not part of their charter to provide cel service.
Their goal is to keep their passengers moving efficiently. By no longer providing that cel service, they disrupted the wannabe disrupters.
Their freedom of assembly wasn't interfered with, they just didn't help it.
If the protesters relied on cel phone coverage to perform their demonstration, then their strategy failed, and they'll have to come up with another way.
They increased the presence of police in the area, so the "how will I call for an ambulance" concern is a bit melodramatic; there were emergency personal already on scene, with non-cel communication capabilities.
Personally, I feel the right to assemble/demonstrate has been extended too far into the area of "I demand the right to fuck up everyone else's day", and applaud BART for doing something about it.
It was kind of lame that I couldn't read LessWrong on my commute home. I really enjoy that part of my day.
Otherwise, yeah. The comparisons to Egypt are a little over the top. It's awesome that cell phones work in the Bart tunnels at all.
It's awesome that cell phones work in the Bart tunnels at all
Upvote this man (and give me some downvotes if it balances things out for you). Too few see the world this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
In regards to the right to assemble/demonstrate, I personally believe that the public's idea (or at least perception) of what makes an effective (nonviolent) demonstration has changed.
"Unifying issues" seem to be somewhat of a thing of the past- it is rare you see tens or hundreds of thousands protesting anything anymore. As demonstrators grow more fringe (due to the lack of "unifying issues"- they protest things that interest only a small minority), their numbers have dwindled to the point a traditional protest is ineffective, and in an effort to secure results they have adopted more... radical techniques.
As an example, if the majority of the San Francisco Bay Area really cared about the issue at hand here, it would have been trivial to stage an effective protest. E.g., call for a boycott (effective, easy and captivating, but only if you have a large following). Pack the cars with protesters, so many that regular commuters can't get on, and refuse to get off. Protests are about demonstrating a majority, a plurality, or a very significant minority, not a tiny vocal minority.
On top of that, I have to wonder about the mindset of the protesters. If they protest, and cause an interruption or major inconvenience to me, then odds are I won't care what their cause is, I won't support them. That is no way for them to gain my support. Do something for charity, for the community, or in some other non-disruptive manner, and be respectful of others in the community.
It's like that band in California that caused the huge traffic jam as a publicity stunt. By doing what they did, they caused huge inconvenience to a lot of people, and got nothing but negative press out of it. They even ended up in court over it. Rightfully so.
If they feel that the only way to get any media attention out of their protest is under the headline of "thousands delayed for hours", then screw them and their cause.
I tend to believe that these disruptive tactics are more to get their name in the paper than to actually try and bring about change.
It was even better when I was in college and protesters trashed campus buildings.
Uhhh, where do you think the money that's going to have to be used to clean up your mess comes from? Yeah, you have not exactly won my support.
Freedom of speech implies the freedom to communicate. Given the era of technology has made it such that the communications infrastructure is fundamental to our speech and communication, it could be construed that removing this is violating our constitutional rights.
Does it MEAN that, or simply imply it?
I don't think it means that there is a requirement to provide the most convenient method available. Cel phone service isn't even classified as an essential service. Never mind internet access.
They didn't stop communication, they made it less convenient. The protesters had to stay within range of a normal cel tower, rather that use the locally/BART provided repeaters. "Can you hear me now?" "No."
What's next? BART has to provide the paper and photocopying to the protesters for their pamphlets so they can communicate their issues?
"The United Nations has proposed that Internet access should be a human right."
"In some countries such as Estonia,[5] France, [6] Spain,[7] Finland[8] and Greece,[9] Internet access has already been made a human right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access#Access_as_a_hum...
Well, as IANAL - I used the word implies as I am not 100% positive...
However, I would propose this is one example where the populous needs to start exerting their opinion on how these things should be interpreted. We are far to reticent to express our view and too complacent in accepting the position of the government in matters where it is critical that we remind the government that this is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy and as such, our views must be properly represented.
I am reminded of when I had a dispute with my home owners association about a ridiculous rule whereby I was precluded from putting up anything other than white curtains in my townhome.
The rule stated that the externally facing view of any curtains must be white. Which is what I had.
The complaint came that due to me having gold colored curtains on the interior side of my windows, at night, when the lights were on - they could tell these were not white.
They attempted to fine me. We battled for months. I went to several HOA meetings and was confronted with an opinion that "these are the rules, we do them to uphold the property values of the community" -- I emphatically reminded the HOA that not only was this argument ridiculous that WE were infact the HOA and thus WE should change the rules to not be so "fucking retarded".
I ended up winning - but the lesson was that bureaucratic authority applied unnecessarily begets mediocre minds reaching for abuseable power.
3 replies →
Would you say that airlines are violating your right to free speech because they make you turn off your cell phones in flight?
What about all the subway tunnels that don't have cell service - is their lack of cell service unconstitutional, or is it just that once you offer someone cell service, you can never take it back?
is their lack of cell service unconstitutional
As I understand it, no. The way Free Speech works in regards to newspapers (which are the closest well-established analogue to cellular) is you have the right to say whatever you want, in your own newspaper, because you own it.
You do not own the cellular networks, in the same way you do not own the San Francisco Chronicle, and you do not have the right to have your speech carried by either.
How then does free speech interact with cellular networks? Well, if you owned and operated your OWN cellular network (no matter the size, technology or hardware) the government cannot prevent you from transmitting to others (unless, of course, you are in violation of FCC regulations)
In short, you have a right to speech (broadcast), but there are no requirements that say intermediaries you do not own must pick up and deliver your speech (broadcast).
7 replies →
An interesting thought: Constitutional rights cannot be violated by private enterprise. They are only protections from government.
Is BART government?
It's not private enterprise, at the very least.