  reub2000Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | really? Blackmail, that's how you negotiate? | |
|
 | | | Re: really? The protesters will simply find and use other ways to organize and communicate. They did it during the Arab Uprising, they will do it in San Francisco BART. The only ones to suffer by BARTs tactics will be the poor slob who is having a heart attack on one of the trains and can't call 911 for help. It always seems to be the everyday Joe who feels the brunt of government over-reaction. The protagonists on both sides of the problem go on with their cat-and-mouse shenanigans. Joe is DOA.... | |
|
| | reub2000Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Re: really? Granted, people have been protesting since before they had cell phones. It sounds like the BART officials realized they made a mistake. Unless it happens again, then the anonymous hackers should understand that it was just an official trying to keep order.
--
My pbase gallery | |
|
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: really? said by reub2000:...the anonymous hackers should understand that it was just an official trying to keep order.
Geesh, talk about a sheeple remark. That sounds like those opinion surveys where people are read the Bill of Rights, and some of them say it's a radical commie document.
This was the case of government infringing the free expression and freedom of assembly rights of the people. Those rights are enshrined in the Constitution specifically to protect the expressions of the people that government may find annoying and inconvenient. What's worse, it was pre-emptions of somthing that possibly might have happened in the future - that type of thing was disalllowed in the Pentagon Papers case. What BART did was about the most unpatriotic, unAmerican thing they could do, and deserves a strong response. | |
|
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: really? "What BART did was about the most unpatriotic, unAmerican thing they could do, and deserves a strong response."
You forget the most obvious principle about "free speech" in which you're going on about - it's still not legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is none. In other words, "freedom of speech" (which is OFTEN mis-represented) does have limitations.
Freedom of speech simply states "government shall make no law against..." It extends between the people and the government. The government still does have the right to keep order. Even the right to assemble requires permits.
Before you go on about BART being unpatrotic and unAmerican, you have to first apply the law.
What I think is completely wrong is that Americans want to run around disturbing the peace and tearing things up and expect that they have the "right" to do so.. which they don't. People have the right to peaceful protest... the government has the responsibility to keep order. | |
|
| | | | reub2000Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Yeesh, it disturbs me how everyone here is willing to fry a guy for one wrong decision. No one here has ever made a mistake? Carry on I guess...
--
My pbase gallery | |
|
| |  GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | said by franknalco:The protesters will simply find and use other ways to organize and communicate. They did it during the Arab Uprising, they will do it in San Francisco BART. The only ones to suffer by BARTs tactics will be the poor slob who is having a heart attack on one of the trains and can't call 911 for help. It always seems to be the everyday Joe who feels the brunt of government over-reaction. The protagonists on both sides of the problem go on with their cat-and-mouse shenanigans. Joe is DOA....
You can use one of the emergency phones in the train or on the platforms.
Granted the trains are so loud that the operator probably won't be able to hear you regardless of what phone you used.
--
My Blog 2.2 | |
|
| | | | | Re: really? Indeed, that particular Joe may have an alternative. My point is that many thousands are inconvenienced - from the mom who can't call home to check on her kids to the guy who can't arrange for a pickup at his destination - they can't use the emergency phones. Meanwhile, the effect on the protesters is probably minimal at best; at worst, it exacerbates the situation. | |
|
| | Go BART! When you ride BART you need to respect their rules. If you don't like it you can boycott it.
--
I speak for myself, not my employer. | |
|
| mogamer
join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI | Re: Go BART! If BART gets money from any government (local, state and/or national) then it is a public entity. Public entities have no right to limit free speech unless it is safety issue. Organizing a protest would only become a safety issue if BART handled it poorly. But considering how they just decided to cut off cell service, they probably would. | |
|
| |  bbeesleyVIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5 | Re: Go BART! said by mogamer:If BART gets money from any government (local, state and/or national) then it is a public entity.
Lots of organizations and even individuals receive money from the government - does this mean they too are all public entities? | |
|
| | | | | Re: Go BART! No, it just means they are weak. Acceptance of gov't funds means there will always be a perception of gov't influence and even as an extension of the gov't itself. As long as that's the case, there needs to be protections in place.
Sorry to go off topic here, but BART shouldn't have been allowed to do what they did. | |
|
| | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by bbeesley:said by mogamer:If BART gets money from any government (local, state and/or national) then it is a public entity.
Lots of organizations and even individuals receive money from the government - does this mean they too are all public entities? If you accept government money then you are no longer a private company. You are a publically subsized company and will be held to different standard as US citizens become part owners of the company.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | | | GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Re: Go BART! said by r81984:said by bbeesley:said by mogamer:If BART gets money from any government (local, state and/or national) then it is a public entity.
Lots of organizations and even individuals receive money from the government - does this mean they too are all public entities? If you accept government money then you are no longer a private company. You are a publically subsized company and will be held to different standard as US citizens become part owners of the company. Then can I go to the Chrysler and GM buildings and riot inside there?
--
My Blog 2.2 | |
|
| | | | |
3 edits | Re: Go BART! BART is a public agency, supported by a specific tax paid by the citizens of the counties in which BART operates (it isn't just San Francisco). The BART directors are appointed by government officials in those counties. There is nothing "private" about BART.
There are about half a dozen counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, but BART is in only some of them. | |
|
| |  jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | I would direct you to "Free Speech Zones":
The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words...
...Edwards v. South Carolina, Brown v. Louisiana, Cox v. Louisiana, and Adderley v. Florida - found that picketing is afforded less protection than pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations on demonstrations may affect the time, place, and manner of those demonstrations, but may not discriminate based on the content of the demonstration. [emphasis mine]
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
|
| | | said by Anonymous:When you ride BART you need to respect their rules.
I agree. The People need to respect Authority. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Good for BART
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
|  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Good for BART Doesn't look like they will.
And remember, a protest that you don't like isn't automatically a riot. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Good for BART said by vpoko:And remember, a protest that you don't like isn't automatically a riot. Yes I generally do not like violent protests. If people want to organize a peaceful protest against BART then by all means let them do so.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Good for BART I don't think anyone organizing the protest said it was going to be violent. | |
|
|  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by pnh102:Rioters and other criminals are not entitled to abuse free speech rights to organize illegal activity.
While speech to organize illegal activity is not protected under the first amendment, and while rights are god given and therefore not entitlements, even criminals have rights.
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
Atomic batteries to power. Turbines to speed. | |
|
 kataanRIP my love.Premium
join:2003-04-22
Greenacres, WA |  Extreme situations
| |
|
| | | Re: Extreme situations said by kataan:"extreme situations in which public safety is endangered" = Someone sneezing on the platform! Just wait and see.
Sounds like a Terrorist spreading disease to me. | |
|
| | great so my family and i could have walked into a riot because the idiots decided to cut service.
--
ummh union bad, ummh union bad, please tell me what else to regurgitate | |
|
| | hmm wonder what the hell the world did before cell phones.... oh, took care of business in person or made arrangements before leaving home...
people ought to be happy that someone decided to put the EXTRA of a cell network in a tunnel, not bitching that it was turned off in a limited area for a short period of time to dispel a protest and/or possible riot.
in all honesty, not having cell service shouldn't have any impact on a prearranged protest.... | |
|
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: hmm said by moldypickle:people ought to be happy that someone decided to put the EXTRA of a cell network in a tunnel, not bitching that it was turned off in a limited area for a short period of time to dispel a protest and/or possible riot. Wow, so you'd be OK if the government shut down a newspaper or a radio station, for just a day, to dispel a protest? How about this website? | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: hmm said by PDXPLT:said by moldypickle:people ought to be happy that someone decided to put the EXTRA of a cell network in a tunnel, not bitching that it was turned off in a limited area for a short period of time to dispel a protest and/or possible riot. Wow, so you'd be OK if the government shut down a newspaper or a radio station, for just a day, to dispel a protest? How about this website? There is a major difference between a news paper, a radio station and then a cellular repeater.
In the instance of a news paper or radio station, or even this website, being shut down you are in fact silencing the collective "voice" of those entities.
Shutting down a cellular service is not silencing the "right" of an individual to express their speech. The cellular network was not the only option of speech nor did it stop the free expression of. Providing a cellular network is not a fundamental right.
You have your arguments in this thread way out of whack. | |
|
| | BART This is fantastic, who would have thought BART would agree to this? All people wanted was BART to stop with the questionable shootings and harassment of innocent travelers and they got a no internet shutdown pseudo-promise. WOOHOOO, win for everybody. | |
|
 ARGONAUTHave a nice day.Premium
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN
kudos:1 | Dirty BART Cutting off wireless communications is a direct breach of the First Amendment. Plus, BART cut off wireless for non-BART travelers as well.
Riding the subway doesn't mean you automatically give up your Constructional Rights as a Citizen.
--
AMD Phenom II X4 3.4GHz - 8GB DDR3 1333 - 2 WD Caviar Black 1TB, 7200 RPM, 64 MB cache - Sapphire Vapor-X Radeon HD 5770 1GB
- Ceton InfiniTV 4 Quad Tuner - Win7 Ultimate 64bit | |
|
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: Dirty BART Yup. This isn't a case of some private company turning off the cell base stations they own. BART is part of government, and goverment actions are restricted by the Constitution. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by ARGONAUT:Cutting off wireless communications is a direct breach of the First Amendment.
You make a strong claim, but you do nothing to substantiate that claim.
How EXACTLY was this a "breach" of the 1st? Be specific.... | |
|
| | Don't understand the fuss. It isn't as though they were actively jamming the signal, just turning off the infrastructure they installed to provide a signal in the first place.
What would the protesters do if the equipment wasn't installed in the first place, as in many other underground transport systems where getting no mobile signal is an expectation (e.g. the London Underground)? Whinge at the government and spout the constitution because they can't use their phones? | |
|
scross
join:2002-09-13
Cordova, TN | Illegal? If what BART did here was blatantly illegal (as has been written about elsewhere), then how do they justify ever doing it again, even if it's under "extreme situations"? And who exactly gets to determine what an "extreme situation" is, anyway?
And what if the shoe had been on the other foot? What if the protesters had decided to jam or otherwise disable the BART network themselves, as part of the protest? What would people have to say about it then? | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | So....nothing was done? Who here thinks that if another thing similar happens, they won't do the same thing? Then we will hear about another "meeting" where the "board has decided to REALLY limit it to imminent danger situations"
Then it will happen a 3rd time and the board will meet again and come to a conclusion that next time, they will "REALLY, REALLY limit it to imminent situations"
Give me a break | |
|
|
|
