>>>>>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.
>
>As I said before, I don't think it's really that simple. Once BART made the service available, cutting it off in order to prevent the organization of a protest constitutes prior restrain on the free speech rights of every person in the station, whether they’re a protestor or a commuter. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right..and turning off the towers is censorship.
>
>>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.
>
>BART has implemented this new rule: "...No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms..." so I guess you can't talk to each other now either. So censor the phones and internet and restrict 'expressive activities'. Sure sounds like a Constitutional violation to me!

The key is "paid" areas. You cannot hold a demonstration "in" a private business, obviously because it's not public and one's right to engage ends at infringing on another's rights. I'll bet you anything they have no chance of winning on Constitutional grounds, for the simple fact that this would directly apply to the security cleared parts of an airport and the Supreme Court for sure, and even I'd suspect the 9th circus want no part of opening that up again.

>>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.
>
>Well if you're employees go around shooting unarmed people

Off our topic but I read that Mr. Hill had a knife.

>I suspect that yes there might be too big of a risk to let people talk / email / protest about it.

To be clear, no one stopped the protest. They stopped cell service IN the stations. The protest still could've been held. Even now protests can be held, in the unpaid "public" areas. Because you have the right to assemble does not mean you have the right to assemble on private property.

It should also be noted that during Monday's protest, the stations themselves were shut down but cell coverage stayed up. What do you think the commuters who were not participating thought of that?

I could relay what a couple friends emailed me but their language is not appropriate for the thread. ;)