At a public hearing Wednesday morning, several members of the Bay Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors deemed the agency’s decision to cut cellphone service two weeks ago during a protest a disproportionate response.
The meeting, held in Oakland, was intended to discuss BART’s Aug. 11 decision to disrupt cellphone service during a protest. Since then, the group Anonymous has led two demonstrations denouncing BART’s actions, saying that the agency violated the First Amendment.
At the hearing, protesters found a sympathetic ear in BART Director Lynette Sweet, who said she believes the protesters were motivated by the “right reasons.”
“We should have let the BART board put a policy in place, and we should have talked it through,” Sweet said.
Although it had no say in the decision, the board is ultimately held responsible.
Moreover, Sweet said she agreed with recommendations made by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which has written to the directors saying phone services should not be interfered with, except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
“Do we want to have a society where the government is in a position to shut down a communications network used by thousands … simply because a few of those people are using it for a particular purpose?” Michael Risher, the ACLU’s staff attorney, said at the hearing.
However, BART board of directors President Bob Franklin said he supported the police chief’s decision for public safety reasons.
“It was a passive way of avoiding confrontation of the protesters — it wasn’t about silencing your voice,” he said.
Anonymous said on its website yesterday that the group will continue to hold protests each Monday until the board meets its demands of firing BART spokesperson Linton Johnson and Police Chief Kenton Rainey.
In an attempt to move forward, BART Director Gail Murray recommended having a plan to address what an appropriate response to a crisis would be. Although BART currently has no such system, a draft is expected next month, according to BART spokesperson Jim Allison.
Still, shutting off cellphone service is still an option for future protests, Allison said.
Though the legality of BART’s Aug. 11 actions has come under question by the Federal Communications Commission, no formal investigation has been undertaken.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
” shut down a communications network used by thousands … simply because a
few of those people are using it for a particular purpose”
Public channels may not be used to plan or commit crimes. BART doesn’t have to allow it.
If someone had been shoved off the platform in front of a train, the emphasis of this story would be reversed.
Cell phone signal access costs money to provide.
Cell phone signal access is a courtesy (do you complain when you can’t get a signal in the basement of Macy’s?).
BART provides the coverage as a courtesy, and they pay the bill. BART can do what they want with what is theirs.
Get over it.
LOL, do you realize that there are pay phones and white courtesy phones in every BART station? There is absolutely no problem with contacting the police or fire departments, regardless of whether cell service is disabled. And for decades BART operated without any cell service at the underground stations. If it wasn’t a first amendment issue then, why is it now?
You trustfund hipster protestors need to get a life.
So we are letting a mere train station set policy dealing with the first amendment? These issues should be delegated to the congress, senate, and supreme courts. Nobody pays attention to who makes up a train committee and they shouldn’t have to. What law gives these Bart employees the right to decide when to turn on and off cell service? What if someone had need to call the police? Its this very frustration with governments that leads to mass riots like the ones we have seen in the UK. After reading several articles about the shooting, and how Bart has dealt with the subsequent protests it makes me extremely angry. Having never protest, it makes me want to throw a bricks and destroy the train station to stop the government from doing evils onto its own people.
“set policy dealing with the first amendment”
Have you read the first amendment? It says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” How can BART set policy about that?