Wouldn't this effectively be violating freedom of assembly?
In this case the more interesting issue is that a private entity disrupted telecommunications on its property without notice or warning. In addition to making it difficult for protesters to coördinate their actions, it also made it difficult for people to make unrelated calls, to report crimes, call 911, and so forth.
It might be legal, but I admit I find the idea very unsettling.
Good point though about unrelated calls, 911, crimes, etc. Had something bad happened during that time I imagine they'd be in some (more) hot water right now.
I've never been clear on this in most places I've been; I don't know if New York's MTA is part of the city, or if it's a private corporation entrusted with a public utility - and if it is, what are the ramifications?
Despite the Republicans wet dreams, we aren't at the stage (yet) where private companies shoot people who don't obey orders or resist.
ETA a link to BART's discussion of its formation: http://bart.gov/about/history/index.aspx
Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms.
Source: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110812.aspx
According to Fairow, the statement from BART saying that cell carriers participated in the shutoff isn't precisely it. Fairow says that language in BART's contract with carriers allows BART to "flip a switch" to cut off service for issues of safety. A spokesperson from one of SF's major wireless carriers confirms this, and says that the carriers themselves weren't involved in the shutdown.
"Ultimately, I'm the one that implemented it," said Fairow. "It was certainly run through through channels. A lot of thought went into this."
Source: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/08/bart-cell-fcc.php
All of the reports that I have seen (including the CNet story linked above) have retracted any statement that the wireless carriers turned off the signal at BART's request.
The bigger issue to me is that is almost certainly illegal to willfully disrupt 911 service, and it's unlikely that whoever flipped whatever switch, be it disrupting commercial power to carrier-owned base stations or a BART-owned DAS, was able to disrupt texts/voice calls to other parties selectively without disrupting 911 service.
[1] http://www.infinigy.com/PDF/InfinigyNeutralHostWhitepaper.pd...
Yeah, BART probably knows where the power switches are.
ability-to-disable seems like a pretty basic provision for allowing others' services into one's facilities.
Of course it's public space. That's where the public is!
And, BART is financed by public money and operated by an agency that reports directly to regional government.
What qualifies as an expressive activity? Saying "I love my friends!" is an expressive activity, and so is saying "BART police shouldn't shoot people who don't deserve to be shot!"
You should definitely be able to "assemble" peaceably and say whatever you want to say.
BART should be within its rights to remove people who actively disrupt the service by blocking platforms or cars or ticket booths, but going beyond that (i.e. removing someone from a train because they were critical of BART or its policies) is too far. If that's what this release is indeed implying...