For three hours during peak commute times on Aug. 11, officials at BART turned off electricity to cellular towers in four stations, after the officials learned that protesters planned to use cellphones to coordinate a demonstration on train platforms. They were planning to protest the recent fatal shooting of a 45-year-old man by transit police.
Soon, many BART riders were thrown into confusion when they were trying to figure out why they were unable to use their phones to contact family and friends. However, not only did it trouble BART riders, but it was also an infringement on free speech rights.
Understandably, the BART police was trying to avoid mob gathering like violent ones during the British riots, but the two situations are different.
Although both the protests were initiated because of the fatal shooting of a civilian, the British riots were mostly fueled by citizens who were angry at Great Britain for cutting vital social programs at a time when unemployment rates are high. In comparison, threats of San Francisco’s potentially violent protests may have been exaggerated to defend the officials’ actions.
Protesters should be able to voice their opinions as long as the protest does not become harmful to others; after all, this country was founded on being able to have the freedom of speech. Most likely, the demonstration would have been peaceful and nothing dangerous would have happened.
BART officials already have set aside special areas for non-violent demonstrations, so there is no reason to block cell phone reception. The officials could also have come up with alternative ways that would not have infringed upon free speech rights, such as employing extra police to stand by and watch for any suspicious activity.
Although blocking cell phone service may have stopped the demonstration from happening this time, it will backfire in the long run. Because the protesters’ free speech rights were suppressed, they will only get angrier, and what originally was to be a peaceful protest may eventually turn into a violent and dangerous one.
Freedom of expression can be limited in very narrow circumstances if there is an immediate threat to public safety. However, BART officials cut off cell phone service on only the suspicion of protest, without sufficient evidence to believe that protests would have gotten out of hand.
Just as cell phone providers do not have the right to shut off service to customers without evidence simply because they may be using it to aid crime, BART officials do not have right to shut off service in the station simply because protesters may be using phones to communicate and organize their demonstration.
