Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: SF cell shutdown: Safety issue, or hint of Orwell?

  1. #11
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,187

    Re: SF cell shutdown: Safety issue, or hint of Orwell?

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Source: Breitbart

    It seems authoritarianism is becoming quite popular recently.
    I don't understand why Breitbart is getting all up in arms. I thought Conservatism was in favor of a business doing as they please. It must be Obama's fault.

    It certainly does have an Orwellian twinge, especially since BART is an arm of the government. What would happen if one wanted to protest T-Mobile or something?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #12
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: SF cell shutdown: Safety issue, or hint of Orwell?

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Yeah, “muBARTek” is such an appropriate hashtag in this instance isn’t it?

    Here’s a novel idea: if you have information about an illegal protest that might occur, once the protest begins you send the cops in and arrest those who are violating the law.
    Not that simple Politics is always in play with a police action...the civilian powers to be that pull the strings make decisions on whats good for their re election or image not whats necessarily good for the public....any time you move the police in a major city it costs millions...having said all that im not condoning what they did in this instance because i dont have all the facts...

    But i nee to ask this...is saving lives as important as shutting down cell service for a few hours...
    Last edited by lpast; 08-16-11 at 09:07 AM.

  3. #13
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: SF cell shutdown: Safety issue, or hint of Orwell?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Seems to me that the cell phone issue is a minor point here. People are allowed to protest. The idea that they tried to shut down the protest is the problem.

    That BART owns the system, they are allowed to do with it what they please. They are providing it as a service to their customers. The idea that they are perhaps setting themselves up for a unrelated lawsuit is a good one, but that's their call.


    As for the article, what Britain does is irrelevant.

    That depends...if its a heavily used area by civilians not involved in protest in a contained area a large protest can cost alot of innocent lives...I dont see how cutting off cell phone service was a big benefit here for security...but I dont have all the facts on what they based the decision on...none of us do...

  4. #14
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,187

    Re: SF cell shutdown: Safety issue, or hint of Orwell?

    I was listening to NPR "Talk of the Nation" on the way home from taking my daughter to the chiropractor. They were talking about this, and the guy "representing" BART (I didn't hear the beginning to tell me what his relationship was) made some points that gave me pause.
    dis
    1) The cell transceivers in question are within stations and trains. BART provides them as a service, but are under no obligation to provide them.

    2) BART is under no obligation to facilitate the flash mob.

    3) BART's primary obligation is to provide timely public transportation. Inasmuch as a demonstration would interfere with that...again, not BART's responsibility to facilitate disruption of service.

    It's an interesting point. The Constitution does provide freedoms of speech and of the press, but it is not the government's responsibilty to give everybody a PA system and a printing press. I don't know...but interesting counterpoints.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  5. #15
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: SF cell shutdown: Safety issue, or hint of Orwell?

    If the legality of this action is challenged it could got either way once it reaches the Supreme Court because the right to Free Speech is not absolute.

    You cannot scream fire in a crowd, you cannot incite a right, and BART can say they were only protecting the safety of innocent people at the stations from what could have been a live threatening situation.

    I also would like to point out that the Air Waves are owned by the public and licenced to TV and Radio Station owners and Free Speech does not exist over the Air Waves to protect the public from the FCC deemed as harmful or offensive to some people who might tune in.

    Go to a City council meeting and try to shout down a Councilperson, but be prepared to be cited or arrested if you do. I know this is true because I have seen it in action. It rook the Chief of Police who is present at all meetings, a few seconds to escort the protester out in Handcuffs.

    Can you imagine how long a Talk Show Host would remain on the air if they threatened the life of anyone, let alone an elected official.

    So Free Speech has it's limitations.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: SF cell shutdown: Safety issue, or hint of Orwell?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    BART doesn't own anything. It's tax payer funded and thus accountable to the residents of the counties that pay into it. So no they can't do as they please.
    I'm not interested in argueing semantics.

    Contrary to some speculative reports, BART did not jam wireless signals or ask cell phone providers to shut down towers near stations. BART owns and controls the wireless network strung through its subways, and BART police ordered it switched off, after receiving permission from BART interim General Manager Sherwood Wakeman, former general counsel for the transit district.

    BART admits halting cell service to stop protests - SFGate

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •