When it comes to publicly funded mass transit, does your constitutional right to free speech stop at the fare gates? That question has been at the center of a heated debate after Bay Area Rapid Transit opted to black out cell phone service at four stations in San Francisco last week to prevent a protest over the train agency’s latest police-involved slaying.
BART claims that it blocked cell service in downtown San Francisco subway stations on August 11th to prevent a protest that they were afraid would turn violent, and that protest never materialized. The hacking group “anonymous” retaliated against the agency’s actions by attacking its myBART.org website and releasing personal user data from it online. Tonight, sympathizers of the group led a protest in downtown San Francisco that led to multiple station closures, but, despite an actual disruptive protest, the agency opted not to disrupt cell phone service this time.
Would the agency have pulled the same stunt to prevent an equally sized pro-BART demonstration? While BART does have an interest in preventing service disruptions and violence on platforms and trains, trying to achieve this by shutting off cell phone service is reckless and possibly unconstitutional. The agency has demonstrated a flagrant lack of respect for its own passengers and has been largely unresponsive to the criticism. A stand must be made against this type of action – if BART can cut cell service in the name of safety, how long before airports or shopping malls claim they need the same ability in the name of preventing terrorism? Ultimately, organized resistance and civil disobedience existed before the cell phone and will exist even if service is temporarily interrupted; BART’s move was an irresponsible and sloppy response to what was at best a marginal threat to the safety of passengers and the operation of the train system.
