• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Cellphones blocked in SF to hinder transit protest

Q

quest7

Android Enthusiast
SAN FRANCISCO – Transit officials said Friday that they blocked cellphone reception in San Francisco train stations for three hours to disrupt planned demonstrations over a police shooting.

Cellphones blocked in SF to hinder transit protest - Yahoo! News

What about other reasons to have our phone service on?

The FCC is reminding the public that such devices create "serious safety risks" by blocking access to public safety services.


http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Moves-To-Crack-Down-On-Cell-GPS-Jammers-112657
 
If you cant go without cell service for a few hours then you have a serious problem. We did just fine not knowing of emergencies before we had cell phones. Trampling on first admendment rights highly doubtful. As not being able to speak on a cellphone don't keep you from speaking period. What about buildings that you can work in that can't get a signal inside. Is that the company owners fault? Are they hindering your first admendment rights there? Sshould they go out their way to provide a signal for you inside the building? Having a cell phone is a convenience and nothing more. How many people gets along just fine without a cellphone. So stop using the excuse of cellphones to just throw that first admendment card.
 
Dark Jedi said:
If you cant go without cell service for a few hours then you have a serious problem. We did just fine not knowing of emergencies before we had cell phones. Trampling on first admendment rights highly doubtful. As not being able to speak on a cellphone don't keep you from speaking period. What about buildings that you can work in that can't get a signal inside. Is that the company owners fault? Are they hindering your first admendment rights there? Sshould they go out their way to provide a signal for you inside the building? Having a cell phone is a convenience and nothing more. How many people gets along just fine without a cellphone. So stop using the excuse of cellphones to just throw that first admendment card.
Click to expand...

I agree, DJ . . . some people forget that there are sometimes good reasons for making it impossible to speak whatever is on their little minds and it is not a violation. Some people do not know our founding fathers or have read their words and sometimes, they scream constitutional violation, rather than think things through.

I lived a fairly good and productive life before the cellular phone arrived. I can go without mine for a few hours.

And a private concern can fully restrict your supposed rights and it is not a violation, as many people often maintain.
 
freedom of speech only applies to times of peace, not illegal activity. As for the social media unit, oh well, it will not help. but once we lose a liberty it can never be regained.
 
Dark Jedi said:
If you cant go without cell service for a few hours then you have a serious problem. We did just fine not knowing of emergencies before we had cell phones. Trampling on first admendment rights highly doubtful. As not being able to speak on a cellphone don't keep you from speaking period. What about buildings that you can work in that can't get a signal inside. Is that the company owners fault? Are they hindering your first admendment rights there? Sshould they go out their way to provide a signal for you inside the building? Having a cell phone is a convenience and nothing more. How many people gets along just fine without a cellphone. So stop using the excuse of cellphones to just throw that first admendment card.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. If they had decided that people talking on cell phones during the commute was problematic so they shut off the system, no one would have any First Amendment issues.

What they did was different than that though. People said they were going to show up to protest. In response, BART shuts down cell service to prevent the protestors from being able to organize. How is that any different that Tunisia or Egypt? It's the reason and intent behind their actions that makes a difference.
 
A.Nonymous said:
It's not illegal to protest.
Click to expand...

yes it is in a non-traditional public forum, by definition of the law. Further more, the government has the right to limit protests by time, place and manner, when it interference with public safety, governments ability to function, and can cause directly physical civil damage to property. Once the test of public safety has been crossed, the activity is illegal civil disobedience. In addition to, the government must make it clear where the proper place to have a traditional public forum can happen. Once again. The protesters are mounting a protest which is meant to disrupt the function and normal government and which directly places other in an unsafe position. The protests are illegal, by every definition of the law.
 
A.Nonymous said:
How is that any different that Tunisia or Egypt? It's the reason and intent behind their actions that makes a difference.
Click to expand...

There is no difference. The government is trying to break up protests over what they feel is a unjust cause. We could argue the cause, but the government is doing what it feels is necessary to limit the protestors ability to organize. Is it wrong, I dont know. Is it draconian, yes it it. Should we care, yes we should. But we have given up this right a long time ago, do not expect to get it back.
 
RiverOfIce said:
yes it is in a non-traditional public forum, by definition of the law. Further more, the government has the right to limit protests by time, place and manner, when it interference with public safety, governments ability to function, and can cause directly physical civil damage to property. Once the test of public safety has been crossed, the activity is illegal civil disobedience. In addition to, the government must make it clear where the proper place to have a traditional public forum can happen. Once again. The protesters are mounting a protest which is meant to disrupt the function and normal government and which directly places other in an unsafe position. The protests are illegal, by every definition of the law.
Click to expand...

That's all fine, but at the point they made the decision, nothing had happened. If these people were actively engaging in illegal civil disobedience, then you might have a good argument. It is not illegal to show up in a public place and protest.

They built an arena here in town recently. It was unpopular with a certain segment of the population. They decided they wanted to protest the opening of the arena. How did our city respond? They roped off an area in front of the arena and designated it for the protesters. They hired security to ensure that the protesters stayed in their designated area. No one's free speech was hindered and there was no disruption of business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom