Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

SF transit blocks cellphones to disrupt protest

Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:26 PM EDT
us-news, technology, us, phone, san-francisco, bart, san-francisco-bay-area, jamming
Terry Collins, Associated Press

FILE - Commuters enter and exit a Bay Area Rapid Transit station in San Francisco's financial district in this Sept. 15, 1997 file photo. Officials with the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, better known as BART, said Friday Aug. 12, 2011 that they blocked cellphone reception in San Francisco train stations for three hours to disrupt planned demonstrations over a police shooting. (AP Photo/Robin Weiner, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

SAN FRANCISCO — A decision by San Francisco Bay Area transit officials to cut off cell phone service at some of its stations to thwart a planned protest drew angry response Saturday from one transit board member who said she was shocked that officials acted as "this type of censor."

Bay Area Rapid Transit officials have said they shut down power Thursday evening to cellular towers for stations stretching from downtown to the San Francisco's airport after learning protesters planned to use mobile devices to coordinate its demonstration.

"I'm just shocked that they didn't think about the implications of this. We really don't have the right to be this type of censor," said Lynette Sweet, who serves on BART board. "In my opinion, we've let the actions of a few people affect everybody. And that's not fair."

BART Deputy Police Chief Benson Fairow on Friday told KTVU-TV that the agency decided to turn off underground cell service because it received reports that a rowdy group that had protested in July had similar plans.

"It all boils down to the safety of the public," Fairow said. "It wasn't a decision made lightly. This wasn't about free speech. It was about safety."

To some, BART's tactic drew comparisons to those of former president of Egypt to squelch protests demanding an end to his authoritarian rule. Authorities there cut Internet and cellphone services in the country for days earlier this year.

"BART officials are showing themselves to be of a mind with the former president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said on its website.

Michael Risher, the American Civil Liberty Union's Northern California staff attorney wrote in blog: "The government shouldn't be in the business of cutting off the free flow of information. Shutting down access to mobile phones is the wrong response to political protests, whether it's halfway around the world or right here in San Francisco."

The ACLU already has a scheduled meeting with BART Police Chief Kenton Rainey on Monday over other issues and Thursday's incident will added to the agenda, spokeswoman Rebecca Farmer said Saturday.

Yet others said while the phone shut-down was worth examining, it may not have impinged on First Amendment rights. Gene Policinski, executive director of the First Amendment Center, a nonprofit educational organization, said freedom of expression can be limited in very narrow circumstances if there is an immediate threat to public safety.

"An agency like BART has to be held to a very high standard," he said. "First of all, it has to be an immediate threat, not just the mere supposition that there might be one. And I think the response has to be what a court would consider reasonable, so it has to be the minimum amount of restraint on free expression."

He said if BART's actions are challenged, a court may look more favorably on what it did if expression was limited on a narrow basis for a specific area and time frame, instead of "just indiscriminately closing down cell phone service throughout the system or for a broad area."

BART officials were confident the cellphone disruptions were legal. It said in a statement that it's illegal to demonstrate on the platform or aboard the trains, and that it has set aside special areas for demonstrations.

"We had a commute that was safe and without disruption," BART spokesman Jim Allison said Friday.

The demonstrators were going to hold a second protest over the fatal shooting of Charles Blair Hill by BART police on July 3 at the Civic Center/UN Plaza station in San Francisco. Hill was shot in the torso by officers responding to reports of a "wobbly drunk" The officers claim Hill came at them with a knife.

Several protesters were taken into custody after a demonstration on July 11 disrupted service during the rush-hour commute and prompted the closing of BART's Civic Center station.

BART has been battling image problems after a white officer fatally shot an unarmed black passenger on New Year's Day 2009 at an Oakland train station that led to violent protests.

___

Associated Press reporter Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Terry Collins's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Rational Progressive Party
  • Regions: San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
  • Public Discussion (30)
PublicServant63

Wow, I feel a little like China, Syria etc. going on here. Civil disobedience.... It's my voice don't stifle it..

  • 6 votes
Reply#1 - Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:35 PM EDT
tobiii

it's illegal to demonstrate on the platform or aboard the trains, and that it has set aside special areas for demonstrations

Oh yeah, that's China and Syria all right. Please.

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:41 AM EDT
Little Sure Shot

it's illegal to demonstrate on the platform or aboard the trains

There is a reason that it should be. Flash mob protesters can get out of hand and if that were to happen on a train platform someone could easily get pushed or thrown into the path of an oncoming train. Trains themselves are a contained area and the last thing that needs to happen if for things to get out of hand and riders injured.

  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:01 AM EDT
Tappy McWidestance

I've searched the Constitution and I didn't see where access to cell signals is a guaranteed right.

  • 3 votes
#1.3 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:35 AM EDT
digcreation

reread the first amendment

the right to free speech and to gather in protest is there and cant be abridged

  • 3 votes
#1.4 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:53 PM EDT
tobiii

EPIC FAIL.

The right of the people PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE.

They have an area SET ASIDE for protests so that the rest of the world can still get to work on time.

See how that works?

You can peaceably assemble - HOWEVER - you cannot INTERFERE with people trying to get to work or travel.

Duh.

  • 2 votes
#1.5 - Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:16 AM EDT
digcreation

welol, I have to admit I don't know what the people in SF were planning. But interrupting their ability to communicate so that they could assemble because they were on a train where people commute does not seem like a legit claim to me.

    #1.6 - Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:15 PM EDT
    Reply
    jdl-28

    What happen to our freedom? Our country is just like all the other countries now when government has power to control your hold life.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#2 - Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:39 PM EDT
    bitemore

    I have a problem with this. They need to find better ways to curb potential violence - NOT by curbing people's free speech. Yeah, looks like we got China, Syria, and maybe a touch of North Korea going on here. And in San Francisco, of all places!

    • 5 votes
    Reply#3 - Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:49 PM EDT
    black spider

    you could just send all of the demonstrators who beat innocent people and stole property or destroyed property...

    to a prison in Alaska, where they think about their stupid actions for the rest of their stupid lives.

    and put them to work, if they dont work, put them on a raft in the middle of the Bering Sea.

    Bottom line: either we control them, or they control us. Which do you prefer?

    1. allowing the perpetrators to be violent, burn down businesses, attack innocent civilians, shoot the police, steal property.

    2. send them to a camp where there are no phones, no internet, just cold air and hard labor.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#4 - Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:58 PM EDT
    leeman1525

    What are you talking about? This was a nonviolent protest. The first amendment guarantees us the right to assemble.

    • 3 votes
    #4.1 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:57 AM EDT
    ScreamingForVengeance

    Yes, we have the right to assemble.

    But we do not have the right to assemble wherever we want, when we want. Your right to assemble doesn't mean you have a right to disrupt me and everybody else. They have areas set aside for these types of things.

    In a nutshell, they are within their rights to ensure a safe commute for everybody involved.

    • 3 votes
    #4.2 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:34 AM EDT
    Reply
    oldfogey

    I have a hard time with this one. As black spider says we have to control violence, personal physical attacks and we can't allow shooting of police and the stealing of property. But those are the things we should control. We should not control freedom of speech or right of assembly by using tactics like cutting off utilities. So, I guess, such a tactic could only be justified if it could be shown to prevent crime without reducing the freedoms and rights. If we can't find a way to do that then we have to rely on law enforcement rather than mass punishment. One solution might be to declare martial law and do away with rights and freedoms temporarily for everyone. I doubt the feared demonstration in this case would arise to that level. Sounds like someone overstepped authority. It also seems they were being a little paranoid. Something like swatting flies with a baseball bat. (Huh? Just thought, you really can swat flies with a baseball bat.)

    • 3 votes
    Reply#5 - Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:46 PM EDT
    black spider

    old fogeys have wisdom, that's why i tell young folk to listen to us, their elders.

    we grew up in an age of respect and reverence for God and Country.

    The new morality created by social engineers, Hollywood and music from Rap to VH1 has created a rather obviously large segment of society that is disrespectful, ignorant, uneducated, lazy, amoral and looking for others to carry their loads for them.

    The socialist leanings of Western Society has created this mess. All you have to do is speak to a person from the FSU former soviet union. they will tell you that giving handouts means you dont respect yourself, you dont have to move except to talk, drink vodka and eat summer sausage. Socialism is anti-individual and anti-religion. SOcialism IS A RELIGION, where the Oligarchists who run the show put themselves on a higher moral plane than God, whether He be Buddha, Jesus, Krishna or Muhammed. Their goal is total control over people, including their morals, their education or lack thereof, their money and their future.

    Socialists, if you really want to control morality, you will have to go the Stalin or Mao route, total domination through violence and killings. Otherwise, you have to rid the body politic of the idea of control and more libertarianism.

    In libertarianism, if you make a bad choice, you fail, but if you work hard and do well, you get to keep your money and will it to your children. IN a socialist state, your reward for your hard work is they take your money after you die and give it to a bureaucrat to do as they wish.

    Morals and responsibility to others is the reason why our nation and England is in rapid decline.

    The same happened in Egypt, Israel, Greece, Rome, Ottoman, French and English Imperialism, now socialist immoral Europe and the decline of values and morals in America.

    Even though 90% of CHinese are atheists, they are still more humble and moral than we are, and that is why this century will be the Asian century.

    • 1 vote
    #5.1 - Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:59 PM EDT
    oldfogey

    black spider I agree but I have one thing to point out to you. Whatever this world is we older folks have created. The youngsters we now see are nothing like we were. They were not born into the same world we were. They will be here after we are gone. I think it is best to give them a lot of lee way because they have to work with what we left them and they will do their own thing now.

    Your rant about morality is well received. You are right. As to the Chinese being 90% atheist, I doubt that figure. They may not be Christian of follow any other religion we like to accept but they are a very spiritual people. They won't even move into a house until they know the house contains the right spirit. Thanks for your reply.

    • 1 vote
    #5.2 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:16 AM EDT
    Z1P2

    Even though 90% of CHinese are atheists, they are still more humble and moral than we are

    90% of Chinese are buddhists, buddhists are not atheists. Buddhism teaches humility and morality as keys to a better future. Christianity says that humility and morality are not needed and that professing Jesus as your savior is all that is needed for the best possible afterlife. So it should come as no surprise that they would be more humble and moral than us.

    • 1 vote
    #5.3 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:31 AM EDT
    bitemore

    #5: (Huh? Just thought, you really can swat flies with a baseball bat.)

    Of course you can - you can TRY. But the collateral damage will be horrific while the flies get away, which makes your analogy more than appropriate!

      #5.4 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:59 AM EDT
      black spider

      90% of Chinese are buddhists

      that is completely incorrect. it is true that many Chinese have Buddhist roots going back hundreds of years, but most do not worship the Buddha.

        #5.5 - Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:34 PM EDT
        Reply
        eyocopeland

        Well, resolving such issues is important because of many reasons

          Reply#6 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:58 AM EDT
          Z1P2

          Those transit officials should be prosecuted. It is illegal under federal law to block cell phone reception. It is illegal because the signal you might be blocking could disrupt a 9-1-1 emergency call. Hopefully they will also be sued. This boneheaded move could have very easily cost someone their life.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#7 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:24 AM EDT
          Mike of the North

          It is illegal under federal law to block cell phone reception.

          I'd be willing to bet there is an exception for law enforcement.

          • 3 votes
          #7.1 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:40 AM EDT
          Z1P2

          I'd stake my job on there not being any exception.

            #7.2 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:44 AM EDT
            Mike of the North

            I wouldn't ask you to stake you job and I'm not implying you're wrong, I would just be very surprised if there wasn't. There usually is.

            • 1 vote
            #7.3 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:56 AM EDT
            tobiii

            It is illegal under federal law to block cell phone reception. It is illegal because the signal you might be blocking could disrupt a 9-1-1 emergency call

            Fail, Fail and FAIL.

            Cell phone jammers are illegal in most countries — except to military, law enforcement and certain governmental agencies.

            United States - Cell phone blocking devices are used by federal officials under certain circumstances.

            Proprietors of many kinds of businesses would like to use cell phone jammers. Restaurant owners and theater houses are just two examples of places that regularly receive complaints from patrons over cell phone abuse. Short of providing expensive metal shielding in the construction of the buildings to block cell phone signals, (which is legal), it's understandable that placing an inexpensive device in the back office to surreptitiously block cell phone usage in the establishment might be tempting. Hospitals would also like to jam cell phones which can interfere with medical equipment. Churches, libraries, courthouses and business owners that want to boost employee productivity are all examples of potential customers of cell jamming technologies.

            [facepalm]

            • 2 votes
            #7.4 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:12 AM EDT
            Jay Butler

            I'd stake my job on there not being any exception.

            Looks like someone is going to be looking for a new job...

            • 2 votes
            #7.5 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:12 PM EDT
            Reply
            Mike of the North

            Let me first say that the initial demonstrations and the apparent planned demonstrations were bone headed moves. Why not demonstrate at the BART offices, outside the BART board president's office, or Bart's chief of police? Why disrupt travel for thousands of people who had NOTHING to do with the shooting that occurred? Self serving idiots for sure and anyone who had their travel disrupted should be able to sue any one of those morons and the people who planned the demonstrations.

            That said, we look to our government to take a stand ABOVE that, to PRESERVE the freedom of the people.

            I don't know who made the call, Bob Franklin, President of BART board of directors (510) 464-6095, or possibly Kenton Rainey, BART Police Chief but whoever it was, needs to be fired.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#8 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:54 AM EDT
            lastone

            The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the tactic, saying on its blog that it was the "wrong response to political protests."

            And the right one is to use tear gas, rubber bullets and night sticks. /

            Preventing a potentially violent situation with non aggressive means is better then sending in cops in riot gear.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#9 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:58 AM EDT
            Obbop

            Imagine the multi-million dollar lawsuit awarded to the survivors of anyone dying of a heart attack or whatever if medical assistance was hindered by an inability to call 9-1-1 foe help?

            Of course, the taxpayer would pay the costs involved, even for a defense that somehow defeated the lawsuit.

            Remember, the ruling elites at any level of USA government/society will use ANY tactic deemed needed to maintain the status quo wanted/needed by those elites.

            OBEY!!!!!!!!!

            • 1 vote
            Reply#10 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:45 AM EDT
            tobiii

            anyone dying of a heart attack or whatever if medical assistance was hindered by an inability to call 9-1-1 foe help?

            Stop with your knee-jerk responses already. Ever notice there are STILL pay phones in The BART terminals? Or are you just commenting from your emotions?

            Average response time is around 20 minutes. This is also WHY they have Defib kits in public areas nowadays as well.

            Hard as it may seem to grasp, Americans have survived for HUNDREDS of years without cellphones.

            • 2 votes
            #10.1 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:52 PM EDT
            digcreation

            Hard as it may seem to grasp, Americans have survived for HUNDREDS of years without cellphones.

            What? How did they entertain themselves while walking to the store 5 minutes away?

            But honestly, its not the medium that matters, its the fact of censorship in order to prevent protest. It violates the very concept of a politically free society.

            • 1 vote
            #10.2 - Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:55 PM EDT
            Reply
            Leave a Comment:
            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
            Newsvine Privacy Statement
            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
            FUN STUFF:
            • Leaderboard |
            • E-Mail Alerts |
            • Top of the Vine |
            • Newsvine Live |
            • Newsvine Archives |
            • The Greenhouse
            COMPANY STUFF:
            • Code of Honor |
            • Company Info |
            • Contact Us |
            • Jobs |
            • User Agreement |
            • Privacy Policy |
            • About our ads
            LEGAL STUFF:
            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com