Comment by samstave
14 years ago
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.
I could just as easily say that those same mediocre minds are looking for rights where none exist.
And I won't comment on the mindset it takes to move into a place that is controlled by an HOA in the first place. ;)
Complaining about morons on an HOA is like moving next to an airport and complaining about the aircraft that always seem to be around.
1 reply →
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).
What about the fact that not only do I own my phone, but I am in a contract with the carrier to provide service for which I pay for. Thus, there needs to be measurable compensation for anytime the contract I pay for service of is inhibited by the carrier or any third party providers participating in the delivery off service governed by that contract.
This could be an important subject, where the service's impingement could realistically represent a violation of my constitutional rights.
The problem is that is will be argued that using their service is at will, being on BART property is at will etc.. etc.. -- but then this is a farked up loophole to the rights within the constitution whereas we are allowing for the constitution to only be upheld in a silo of presence, property and service I directly own.
Does this mean, then, that if I have a mortgage on my home - that truly it is the banks property and therefore am not entitled to my rights?
Why so, then, would we say that when I am out of my house, on public or private property, that my rights are suspended?
We need to either protect communication and speech throughout - or not. I do not see much middle ground here.
Finally I agree that such efforts to cutoff such a fundamental service is malfeasance in that it would prevent any notification of imminent danger outside the group.
This will likely be fought by only permitting 911 - but what if the threat is from the system itself. This is directly opposed to the constitution which is designed to uphold inalienable rights of the people against tyranical systems of governance... if the only authority you can contact is the one who is directly attacking you - this is entirely flawed.
5 replies →
I will add that if BART had instead employed the use of cell phone jammers, this would be much murkier. On the one hand, you could argue a jammer is essentially "intercepting" your transmission. On the other hand (the view that I favor, knowing a thing or two about radio) you could argue the jammer is in reality simply "drowning you out"- which could infringe upon your right to be heard, except I don't know if such a right actually exists.
It would boil down, I think, to "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law". Personally, while I am in general a "spirit of the law" kind of guy, I find myself falling back on the letter for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. Back then they meant what they said, and they said what they meant - with incredible clarity- and it's interesting to see how much sense a rigorous "letter of the law" interpretation of those ancient laws often makes.
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.