speechandprivacy.

com

http://www.speechandprivacy.com/2011/08/san-franciscos-bart-resorts-to.html

San Francisco's BART Resorts to Communist Tactics to Stifle Dissent

Free Speech Issue: Should public agencies be able to shut down public communication systems to stifle political dissent? News Event Last Thursday, in the first known instance of a governmental regulatory agency shutting down public communication, the Bay Area Transit Authority of San Francisco (BART) closed its cellular service for three hours at four different subway locations. It did so to limit the ability of protesters to organize and express their political dissent. The latest rally was in response to the fatal shooting of Charles Hill by BART police at the Civic Center station on July 3. There have been other deaths as well. Jerrod Hill in 1992, a mentally ill man in 2001, and Oscar Grant in 2009. The agency has a history of cover-ups and recently settled a 1.3 million dollar wrongful death of suit with the family of Oscar Grant. Reasons Cited by BART Rather than doing something about these and other abuses, BART resorted to totalitarian method of control against those who would condemn their actions. This behavior has caused an outrage by many public right's groups. (Here is an extensive letter written to BART officials on behalf of the ACLU of San Francisco.) Several reasons were offered by the transit agency for stopping the cell service.

BART spokesman Jim Allison said that the cell phone disruptions were legal as the agency owns the property and infrastructure.

What an interesting claim. If everyone did as Jim Allison owners of the Empire State building in New York could terminate all television broadcasts of those stations renting antenna space on its buildings. Owners of local skyscrapers and radio towers would be able to disable public communication devices as well? Another reason stated by Allison was the expected typical excuse about "public safety."

A civil disturbance during commute times at busy downtown San Francisco stations could lead to platform overcrowding and unsafe conditions for BART customers, employees and demonstrators. (San Francisco Gate.)

Isn't it interesting that instead of utilizing police and public safety agencies, that BART instead choose censorship. One would be hard pressed to argue that prior restraint of individual liberties is the only viable strategy for public safety. For the record, the Supreme Court has ruled time and again that the fear of violence is not a valid constitutional argument for prior restraint; rather, there must be an immediate and imminent danger (see Hess v. Indiana) A final argument offered by BART is that it is illegal for protesters to use train platforms to carry out their protests.

BARTs chief spokesman Linton Johnson said people are always allowed to protest outside of the fare gates at the BART stations, but not on the platforms or trains themselves.

Nice try Linton. The issue before us here isn't illegal platform protests, it's the actions of BART in shutting down ALL cell communication--even legitimate protests. No illegal protest had yet taken place. The transportation agency has numerous means at its disposal to control the public. Forbidding all speech is an overreach of authority and the Supreme Court has affirmed again and again that one may not forbid all speech in attempt to control "some form of objectionable speech." Conclusion The truth of this situation is this, Free Speech is a messy liberty and BART has some comeuppance due it for the deaths that have occurred as a result of their police practices--even if it disrupts the transportation agency for a period of time. BART deserves to be scrutinized by its public and protested because of its foot dragging on implementing numerous reforms called for in 2009 by the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. Hopefully, at the end of all of this, BART will learn an important lesson about the first amendment. The liberty of free speech was given to us by the founding fathers to protect us against repressive agencies like BART. In the meanwhile, we can only hope that the numerous organizations calling for further investigations such as, the ACLU, the FCC, the EFF and other coalitions, make this point abundantly clear. Related articles