Comment by sliverstorm

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.