There were protests in the Bay Area before Occupy.
One such protest, occurring just a month before the verb 'to Occupy' was invented, was so unfathomably dangerous that the Powers-That-Be felt it necessary to shut down wireless communications facilities on BART, the Bay Area's Rapid Transit (subway) system. On August 13th, 2012, the San Francisco Chronicle noted
BART officials acknowledged Friday afternoon that they had switched off the transit system's underground cell phone network, which runs from Balboa Park Station through the Transbay Tube, from 4 to 7 p.m. Thursday to prevent protesters from coordinating plans to stop trains.
This raised constitutional questions -- to the surprise of no one except perhaps the officials who seemingly so lightly decided on a shutdown as an appropriate course of action. Now the Federal Communications Commission has gotten involved, and has
called on the public to comment on the constitutionality and propriety of such actions (tell them what you think: see end of diary for details).
Denying the right of the many to communicate to prevent the alleged conspiratorial tweets of the few should be enough to earn the decision makers a raised eyebrow from Mr. Spock.
The fact that such tactics are used by dictators in such places as Egypt and Syria to attempt to shut down protests might have been a cause for concern.
Reading the consitution might have also provided them a clue...
Congress shall pass no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...
Checking out the
Communications Act of 1934 might have given then pause...
According to a citation issued January 26, 2011, by the Federal Communications Commission against Comtrex Communications for illegal cell phone jamming, Section 333 of the Communications Act of 1934 states, no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government.
or
an excerpt from
Pike v. Southern Bell
while it's true that there's no right to mobile phone service, the law is pretty clear that there is a right to not have the government try to stifle a particular form of speech by shutting down infrastructure, solely targeted at that form of speech.
Reviewing cases from other jurisdictions (including People v. Brophy), the Alabama Supreme Court found that the right of every citizen to use a phone was guaranteed by federal law and could not be deprived without due process...
What is the source of Mr. Connor's authority to issue such an order? We know of none. And we hold that none exists...
These depredations of a subscriber's legal right to telephone service constitute a denial of due process guaranteed by the Constitution of 1901, art. 1, § 6. The gratuitous and arbitrary action of a police official is no justification for an abridgment of this right.
BART officials have their counter:
But ((BART spokesman Linton)) Johnson said a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision, in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case, allows public agencies to put public safety before free speech when there is an imminent danger to the public.
It would seem to me that in all but the most extreme situations (such as a plausible threat to blow up tracks or a train) that even aside from First Amendment considerations, the danger to the public rests far more in turning off such communication -- given that people have come to rely on it and its obvious benefits in emergencies -- than unsupported speculation that halting service would impede allegedly illegal activities that may or may not be in and of themselves dangerous to "the public."
So what's the upshot? BART officials eventually backpedalled, claiming that they had instituted a new policy that would henceforth forbid such shutdowns unless there was a significant danger to the public. But no one really believes them.
Now the FCC has called on the public to speak to the issue:
COMMISSION SEEKS COMMENT ON CERTAIN WIRELESS SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS (PDF)
While the important function that wireless service plays in protecting public safety is undisputed, some commentators, including some law enforcement personnel, have raised concerns that wireless networks can be used in ways that put the public's safety at risk. Concerns, for example, that wireless service could be used to trigger the detonation of an explosive device or to organize the activities of a violent flash mob have led public authorities in the United States and abroad to consider interrupting wireless service. Last summer, a public agency temporarily interrupted wireless service on parts of a mass transit system based on stated concerns about public safety.
Any intentional interruption of wireless service, no matter how brief or localized, raises significant concerns and implicates substantial legal and policy questions. The service interruption last summer drew sharp criticism, and state and local governments have recently grappled with how to address possible future events. We are concerned that there has been insufficient discussion, analysis, and consideration of the questions raised by intentional interruptions of wireless service by government authorities. In this Public Notice, we seek comment on the legal constraints and policy considerations that bear on an intentional interruption of wireless service by government actors for the purpose of ensuring public safety.
How to Leave a Comment With the FCC
If you would like to leave a brief comment, it is actually quite easy to do so. I was surprised at how easy it was. Simply follow these steps:
- (Optionally) Review the Request for Comments: here to read the specific questions they are asking for comments on.
- Go here: http://apps.fcc.gov/...
- Click on link: "Submit a Filing (Express)" at the left in the ECFS Main Links.
- Clink on link: "click here" in the ECFS instructions at the top, or you can search for "12-52" and click on the link for that filing.
- Enter "12-52" for "Proceeding Number" (if not already filled in)
- Fill out the rest of the information as appropriate.
- Enter your comment:
E.g. as I wrote
"It is never appropriate for a public agency to cut off communications. Besides the public's first amendment right as specified by 'Congress shall make NO LAW... abridging the freedom of speech', basic safety considerations -- calling out in case of a medical or other emergency, dictate that it is inexcusable that such action be contemplated in all but the most extreme emergencies."
- Click: "Continue".
- Click: "Confirm or Modify" as appropriate.
It's probably not a good idea to pepper your comments with the seven dirty words, but beyond that, let 'em know how you really feel.
-----
P.S. The T-shirt reads:
Dear Bart: You can't take away our ability to call 911 when you also make it a habit of shooting your riders.
likely referring to both the
Charles Hill shooting by BART Police and the Oscar Grant killing.