BART cut power to the wireless sites in these/tunnels tations - they didn't ask the wireless providers to terminate their services. I suspect that since the wireless sites lease space and consume power from BART operated facilities, BART is well within their rights to terminate power and other services based on existing contractual agreements.
However, that doesn't make what BART did "right." It is downright disgusting and I hope that the wireless providers mount up and put some serious pressure on BART in response. Certainly the providers are paying serious money to BART to lease space to provide service to riders, and the optics of the loss of that will hurt BART far more than it will hurt the wireless providers. At the end of the day, loss of wireless lease would really be a punch in the gut to BART, not to mention the public safety issues.
But, if you decided to use HN to organize a response to an issue and HN deleted your posts, that doesn't make HN's actions a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment does not apply for private institutions that you choose to participate on.
BART shutting down cell service is irresponsible, deplorable and something we're going to see more and more as the first world descends into the kind of place we all see it becoming.
Which is what?
This sounds nice, but do you actually know what those Constitutional standards are?
First, as you seem to recognize, the area in which cell phone service was disrupted is what is considered a "nonpublic forum." The government has significant latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, especially when the restriction is related to the function of that forum. Here, BART shut down cell phone service because it was informed that a group of "protesters", which had caused disruption to BART service in the past, was going to use cell phones to organize another disruption. According to reports, cell phones were to be used to communicate the locations of BART police officers to maximize the mob's ability to disrupt service.
Second, not all speech is due protection under the First Amendment. There is protected speech, and unprotected speech.Speech designed to incite violence or create a breach of the peace is not protected. There is substantial case law on this. Here, based on tweets like "We are going to show BART (@SFBART) how to prevent a riot #OpBART" and the past actions of this particular group of "protesters", it is clear that BART had a compelling reason to temporarily shut down cell phone service in its stations.
Finally, in this case, BART did not prevent this group of "protesters" from expressing ideas. It simply restricted, temporarily, a particular mode of delivery.
What about those who weren't planning to use their cell phones to incite a riot? Again, there is more latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, and any restrictions here were content-neutral, narrowly drawn in terms of time, place and manner, and were for a compelling purpose (protecting public safety).
Bottom line: this is only a Constitutional issue if you have no understanding of the Constitution and First Amendment case law.
The big problem is that the governing authorities assumed that everyone around BART that day was there for nefarious cause and treated everyone as a suspect, thereby shutting down potential criminal activity, yet depriving law-abiding citizens the ability to communicate freely. If the governing authorities were interested in preserving security, then they should use the means granted to them by the citizens; namely, police officers.
You can pick up any cellphone that has a battery in it, regardless of contract status, and call 911. That is of course unless you ride BART during a protest, a time when you are much more likely to be in need of emergency services.
If you say yes, how about the USFS? When I'm up in the mountains in land managed by the USFS, I cannot always place a 911 call. Can I sue the USFS for obstructing one of my most basic human rights, access to rapid sophisticated medical response?
BART is fairly dangerous. It has it's own dedicated police force. Is it ok for movie theaters to jam cell phones? What happens when someone dies because they couldnt get thru to 911 during a protest in a major city? What about when they shut the Internet off during a riot in NY?
Does no one else see where this is going?
So during the next protest they ban cars, including emergency vehicles? People got around just fine before cars.
I don't think you quite understand, we aren't talking about people not being able to all their friends, we're talking about 911.
We need to hurry up and give our government the ability to have an Internet off switch, you know, for the safety of everyone.
If I buy a cellphone jammer and run it on my property near a government building because there is a protest going on... for the safety of everyone. I would be immediately arrested upon discovery of what I was doing.
Not sure about California.
The worst that's likely to happen is someone sues them, but good luck proving damages.