Old Scatterbrain Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/officials-interrupt-phone-stall-protest-002641244.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 And the British PM Cameron wants to shut down Twitter and Facebook, claiming they are being used to coordinate the riots there. Flash Mobs have been known to use them to organize and create mayhem. Milwaukee is believed to be the latest example. China routinely shuts down the internet to quell dissent and round up the disaffected. If you can control the means of communication, you can control the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 If you can control the means of communication, you can control the masses. Like Syria, Cuba, and Iran. Freedom ain't always easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Rick Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 My feelings are pretty cut & dry - BS. Never thought I would agree with the ACLU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Since it is obvious that the Blackberry and other such devices caused the violence, isn't it time we banned them? Or at least required registration, background checks, and waiting periods? And any device capable of more than 10 messages a day is an 'assault device' and should not be on the street, they are only safe in the hands of professionals. It is, after all, for the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Since it is obvious that the Blackberry and other such devices caused the violence, isn't it time we banned them? Or at least required registration, background checks, and waiting periods? And any device capable of more than 10 messages a day is an 'assault device' and should not be on the street, they are only safe in the hands of professionals. It is, after all, for the children. You make a valid point, Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 In context, a tough issue. If it's already illegal to stage protests on transit platforms, I don't know that the free speech issue even get reached. Is there a right to engage in civil disobedience? If there is, is it still disobedience? Isn't it kinda whiney to complain that you wanted to break the law, but the transit authority interfered in your "right" to do so as part of a group? What about the folks who weren't planning a protest, but who were unable to communicate for legitimate purposes? Are their "rights" compromised? I don't know that there's a "right" to cellular access, or to cell access in a particular facility; if a property owner wants to block or simply not facilitate cell signal (real easy in transit tunnels), I don't know that there is anything illegal or unconstitutional about it. LL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Like Syria, Cuba, and Iran. Freedom ain't always easy. Freedom has MANY more merits than demerits IMHO - I'll take those demerits over taking away OUR GOD GIVEN freedoms 100% !!!! GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Mosby Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I have mixed feelings on this as well, so let me ask a question: As I understand the article, folks were planning a protest on a crowded platform at rush hour. My question is this: Does their freedom of expression give them the right to jeopardize the safety of others not involved? I'm glad it's not a decision I would have had to make. Not sure how I would have chosen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Rick Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Clay, The way I read it - instead of enforcing the laws already in place and hauling off any individuals who chose to break those laws, they opted to take away a priveledge of all honest law-abiding citizens. And since the disruption didn't happen, they can now tout the effectiveness of securing communications for the masses to prevent possible public displays in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Phil Peeno #50923 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 This issue is a toss up. The BART cellular antennas are probably owned by the city and not the cellular service provider. Just like free WiFi in McD. McD can turn off the WiFi antenna whenever they see please. Now if AT&T, Verizon or Sprint turns off the towers to purposely disrupt service then that is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Mosby Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Clay, The way I read it - instead of enforcing the laws already in place and hauling off any individuals who chose to break those laws, they opted to take away a priveledge of all honest law-abiding citizens. And since the disruption didn't happen, they can now tout the effectiveness of securing communications for the masses to prevent possible public displays in the future. Not arguing the decision one way or the other, just wondering about things. Public safety versus freedom of expression. Pre-emptive versus reactionary actions. Don't want to see any freedoms lost. But if someones right to free expression causes a loss of life, do we say " Sorry, Sh*t happens?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Scatterbrain Posted August 14, 2011 Author Share Posted August 14, 2011 This issue is a toss up. The BART cellular antennas are probably owned by the city and not the cellular service provider. Just like free WiFi in McD. McD can turn off the WiFi antenna whenever they see please. Now if AT&T, Verizon or Sprint turns off the towers to purposely disrupt service then that is a problem. Let me make sure I understand your position: if the city, as in a governmental body, shuts down the communication you don't care, but if a private commercial enterprise turns off its own equipment, you have a problem with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Not arguing the decision one way or the other, just wondering about things. Public safety versus freedom of expression. Pre-emptive versus reactionary actions. Don't want to see any freedoms lost. But if someones right to free expression causes a loss of life, do we say " Sorry, Sh*t happens?" Change the right and see if it still makes sense. Say there is a cluster of shootings. Do we then disable all firearms in the area to prevent loss of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Shapiro Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Clay, The way I read it - instead of enforcing the laws already in place and hauling off any individuals who chose to break those laws, they opted to take away a priveledge of all honest law-abiding citizens. And since the disruption didn't happen, they can now tout the effectiveness of securing communications for the masses to prevent possible public displays in the future. That's my take on it too. Frankly folks, there's no question here. What the govt. did was clearly wrong, and in violation of the Constitution. We don't ban the media. Try banning books, or magazines, or newsletters. There's nothing fundamentally different from that vs. the cell network or internet. It's nothing but the means of communication. Action needs to be taken against those that organized the "event." Don't blame the messenger if you don't like the message. Incidentally, I don't believe that BART owns those towers. If they are on BART property, the land is likely leased out for the tower. But it's highly unlikely they are owned by BART. Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Not a testament to the right or wrong of the decision, but I have had the displeasure of having seen a number of "demonstrations" in San Francisco first hand... and folks, they ain't pretty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nichols Creek, SASS #77627 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Since it is obvious that the Blackberry and other such devices caused the violence, isn't it time we banned them? Or at least required registration, background checks, and waiting periods? And any device capable of more than 10 messages a day is an 'assault device' and should not be on the street, they are only safe in the hands of professionals. It is, after all, for the children. Lost my coke on the keyboard on that one. I stole it and put it on Facebook....this oughta be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Lost my coke on the keyboard on that one. I stole it and put it on Facebook....this oughta be fun. You dog! That might be fun to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.