>>>So cut off cell phone communications to quell a protest?? This IS the United States isn't it?
>>>
>>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=95300
>>
>>How childlike do the poor dears who couldn't use their cell phones for their protest organization seem? How ever did people organize before the almighty cell? If only they lived in a part of the country that was known for organized protest perhaps they could consult with an elder to figure out if it can be done. ;)
>
>The point is that BART turned off the cell towers - which I believe is wrong to do for a vast number of reasons seeing how this is the USA. I don't consider infringements on my rights childlike. I suppose if they talked to an elder from the late 60's he could teach them how to use a ditto machine and pass out flyers. If that gets shut down perhaps they can begin engraving drawings in caves.

Speech is a right. Using a cell to excercise that right is a priviledge. Otherwise every carrier would have to have and maintain 100% coverage of the entire nation at all times or be in violation.

Don't get me wrong, I have an issue with a government body shutting down cell service, especially under the auspices of "security", however, I do not see a Constitutional violation here. BART owns the towers. They could shut them all down permanantly if they chose. A targeted shutdown, while inconvienient, doesn't seem that big a deal.

I also see a big helping of "be careful what you wish for" here. If people get too cute with lawyers in this case, many other public offices and private businesses may decide that providing cell service is too big a risk verses the reward and start shutting down public access to towers permanently.