Your right to, well, we're not sure.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unless you are living under a rock you know about flash mobs. Not all of 'em are violent. Some are just people out having fun.

An underwear flash mob. The nation needs more of these.

They communicate via instant messenger, texting and tweets. So far, this has allowed 'em to stay pretty much ahead of law enforcement, specially the violent ones.

Now comes the question, when and where and how is permissible to shut down their communication network? Devices are manufactured in the United States which can shut down wireless communications within a certain area.

It is illegal to possess and use one of these devices in the US. The things are made here but sold overseas

So forget about that. But is it permissible to turn off the cell signal carriers?

No signal disruption here. It's just the retransmission devices are turned off.

I don't dial 911. I dial the coroner.

This was recently done in Kalifornia when a subway system switched off its signal boosters. The subway operators were not interfering, blocking, distorting or otherwise tampering with the radio signals, which is illegal in the United States. They just stopped offering a re-transmission service.


http://www.fastcompany.com/1774524/is-it-legal-to-block-mobile-phones-to-prevent-a-riot

This article notes this is beyond a gray area. This is uncharted, un-legislated and un-court-tested areas. We literally have nothing, except the US Constitution and decisions from SCOTUS on free speech to guide us.

BART was acting, it says, to prevent a violent mob from showing up. Gotta appreciate them being pro-active. Had they not done something and the mob showed up and gone postal, BART would be body slammed for NOT doing something to prevent it.

"cell" phone. Get it? Ahhhh, never mind.

Some folks are complaining that their inability to communicate via electronic device was done illegally.

Was BART right in what it did? Myself, I am thinking right now, yes. Yes, you do have the right to free speech, which the government cannot interfere with unless there are exceptional circumstances.

I'm not sure, but I am leaning in that direction, that this was an exceptional circumstance.

Beyond that, I remind you - cellular communications are done over frequencies licensed by the United States government. In other words, your cell phone communication is controlled by the government.

That in mind, I think the government does have the right to shut down the ability to communicate over those air waves with a much lower standard than is needed to stop you from speaking your mind on the street corner.

Ya doesn't like it, ya doesn't have a cell phone. The Constitution, to my thinking, does not guarantee you the right to instantly communicate via text message with a person 5 feet away from you.

Gotta get me one of them signs

Your mouth is not controlled by the government. Some folks mouths are not controlled at all, even by them.

Call me a luddite, but I'm siding with BART.

Aside - the bloody in-system spell checker here INSISTS luddite is misspelled. Sigh.