8/3/2019 San Francisco's BART Resorts to Communist Tactics to Stifle Dissent

1/2

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

San Francisco's BART Resorts to Communist Tactics toStifle Dissent

Free Speech Issue: Should public agencies be able to shut down publiccommunication systems to stifle political dissent?

News Event

Last Thursday, in the first known instance of a governmental regulatoryagency shutting down public communication, the Bay Area Transit Authorityof San Francisco (BART) closed its cellular service for three hours at fourdifferent subway locations. It did so to limit the ability of protesters toorganize and express their political dissent. The latest rally was inresponse to the fatal shooting of Charles Hill by BART police at the CivicCenter 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 agencyhas a history of cover-ups and recently settled a 1.3 million dollar wrongful death of suit with the family ofOscar Grant.

Reasons Cited by BART

Rather than doing something about these and other abuses, BART resorted to totalitarian method of controlagainst those who would condemn their actions. This behavior has caused an outrage by many publicright's groups. (Here is an extensive letterwritten 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 agencyowns the property and infrastructure.

What an interesting claim. If everyone did as Jim Allison owners of the Empire State building in New Yorkcould terminate all television broadcasts of those stations renting antenna space on its buildings. Owners oflocal 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 anddemonstrators. (San Francisco Gate.)

Isn't it interesting that instead of utilizing police and public safety agencies, that BART instead choosecensorship. One would be hard pressed to argue that prior restraint of individual liberties is the only viablestrategy for public safety. For the record, the Supreme Court has ruled time and again that the fear ofviolence is not a valid constitutional argument for prior restraint; rather, there must be an immediateand 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 theirprotests.

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

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/12/BAEU1KMS8U.DTL#ixzz1VD7Q7UWKhttp://www.aclunc.org/docs/aclu_letter_to_bart_chief_of_police_-_aug_15_2011.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Granthttp://www.speechandprivacy.com/2011/08/san-franciscos-bart-resorts-to.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linton_Johnsonhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=hess+v+indiana&hl=en&as_sdt=2,37&case=4042159652386241321&scilh=0http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/12/BAEU1KMS8U.DTL#ixzz1VD7Q7UWKhttp://www.aclunc.org/docs/aclu_letter_to_bart_chief_of_police_-_aug_15_2011.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Granthttp://www.bart.gov/about/police/http://www.speechandprivacy.com/2011/08/san-franciscos-bart-resorts-to.html

8/3/2019 San Francisco's BART Resorts to Communist Tactics to Stifle Dissent

2/2

Nice try Linton. The issue before us here isn't illegal platform protests, it's the actions of BART in shuttingdown ALL cell communication--even legitimate protests. No illegal protest had yet taken place. Thetransportation agency has numerous means at its disposal to control the public. Forbidding all speech is anoverreach of authority and the Supreme Court has affirmed again and again that one may not forbid allspeech 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 itfor the deaths that have occurred as a result of their police practices--even if it disruptsthe transportation agency for a period of time. BART deserves to be scrutinized by its public and protestedbecause of its foot dragging on implementing numerous reforms called for in 2009 by the NationalOrganization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.

Hopefully, at the end of all of this, BART will learn an important lesson about the first amendment. Theliberty of free speech was given to us by the founding fathers to protect us against repressive agencies likeBART. In the meanwhile, we can only hope that the numerous organizations calling for further investigationssuch as, theACLU, the FCC, the EFF and other coalitions, make this point abundantly clear.

Related articles

http://www.eff.org/http://www.aclu.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_of_Black_Law_Enforcement_Executives