Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After Cell-Phone Switch-Off, Anonymous Promises BART Protest

Posted by timothy on from the foolproof-plan dept.

According to the San Francisco Appeal, the cellphone service shut-down that the BART system imposed Thursday (by disabling transponders which allow cellphone communications in the underground portion of the system), besides drawing rebukes from various civil liberties groups, has generated plans for a protest Monday organized by Anonymous.

6 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, they can fuck right off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People have the right to protest all they want, but:

    1) BART has no obligation to assist them in doing so. BART had every right to turn off their equipment. Do these protesters expect to have the police drive them to the protest as well?

    2) If the protesters are interfering with mass transit, they're just being assholes. Yes, it's sad that someone got killed. No, this doesn't mean that tens of thousands of people should have their schedules fucked around with.

    The fact that this is such a big deal in the first place shows that these aren't real protesters anyway. They're just a bunch of spoiled SF kids thinking they're activists. Real activists wouldn't let something like not having internet access during the protest get in their way.

    1. Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      2) If the protesters are interfering with mass transit, they're just being assholes. Yes, it's sad that someone got killed. No, this doesn't mean that tens of thousands of people should have their schedules fucked around with.

      Not only that... but if protesters are interfering with mass transit, they are committing a crime and should be arrested, if they do not leave/disperse when ordered to by officials.

      There are legal means of protest. And assemblies are legal, in some but not all public areas.

      Once you enter an area that requires a ticket or that is private property, you are no longer in a public venue for free unhampered expression; you are in an area for paying customers.

      And property owners (including the government) have a right to not allow protests on their private property.

    2. Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. by physicsphairy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please explain to me why a society in which protesters are allowed to effectively shut down my transportation to blare their political statements is morally superior to one in which they can assemble in the nearby concourse where everyone will be able to hear what they're saying and read their signs just as well. Also, please post your address, so that I can setup a protest in your living room. (certainly you would not dare to designate a private area restricted from public expression!)

      --
      When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
    3. Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because in your little sit quietly and be beaten society, the Civil Rights Movement failed and black people still can't vote!

      Like my dad always says, it's the minority that is kicking over fences that makes the peaceful protesters seem reasonable and get people to talk to them. Without them, the peaceful protesters will themselves be labelled as extremists and be ignored.

    4. Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. by fluffy99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You sir are an idiot. I paid for my phone service to deny my that service is a breach of contract. As long as I have paid for my phone service I have a RIGHT to use it providing i use it within the terms outlined in the contract with my provider. To deny me that right is the same as stealing something I paid for and is a breach of contract.

      No I think you are the idiot. BART simply shutdown a feature that they normally provide their passengers. You're acting like BART is actively preventing the telco from providing you service. You don't have a contract with BART to use their cell repeaters.

      You have a contract with the telco provider, who obviously is failing to provide coverage underground. Read your contract and you'll notice there is absolutely no guarantee of service at all.

    5. Re:Oh, they can fuck right off. by TheEmperorOfSlashdot · · Score: 3, Insightful
      hjf is an inarticulate moron, however you are still technically incorrect.

      I added the word "deadly" after the fact, without re-reading the whole sentence. But the police are required to respond and defend themselves and the public when threatened.

      Actually, numerous court decisions have upheld that the police and government have no legal or Constitutional obligation to provide protection to the public. An example of this would be Warren v. District of Columbia:

      Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.[2]

      The police could have simply retreated or ignored the threat if they chose to do so, and there would be no judicial means of recourse against them. Even in cases of gross negligence, the police cannot be found liable for injuries which are caused by other people.


      THE EMPEROR HAS SPOKEN.