Concerned about possible riots, officials at Bay Area Rapid Transit in San Francisco blocked cell phone reception at train stations for three last Thursday.
The officials said they had learned that demonstrators planned to use mobile devices, including cell phones, to coordinate a protest in response to the fatal shooting by BART police on July 3 of a man officers say brandished a knife. No demonstrations developed on Aug. 11.
BART officials had good reason to be concerned about a the way in which cell phones contribute to such demonstrations. Similar communication methods have changed shifted political power in the Middle East. (Deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek tried to mute protests by cutting Internet and phone service. The tactic didnt work.) Similar communications facilitated recent riots in London, and a demonstration in July prompted the closing of BARTs Civic Center station.
But does such concern create sufficient justification for disrupting cell service of thousands of commuters who had no plans to do anything but ride home?
The right to peaceable assembly is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That document does not, in itself, constrain transit authorities (BART not being Congress), but the provision accurately reflects the value U.S. citizens place on their ability to make their opinions known, en masse.
For all of this nations history, Americans have been attempting to locate the bounds of such rights. The most frequently cited exception to the First Amendment right of free speech, shouting fire in a crowded theater, is relevant because a mob on a subway platform could very quickly cause a similarly fatal stampede. Preventing violence is a good thing, but even that end will not justify unrestricted means.
Mobs existed long before social media, before cell phones, and probably before recorded history. Electronic devices speed communication and certainly assist in coordinating large groups, but in any urban area, word of mouth still can spread very quickly to large numbers of people.
All gatherings have the potential to turn violent, even those that start out peacefully. Examples worth considering are political rallies and military funerals. The idea of prohibiting either, or of hampering the media through which people learn about them, should be abhorrent to Americans.
How, then, can public safety be preserved? Interfering with cell phone reception doesnt seem like the right answer. Besides the large number of people wanting to make calls or send texts saying something innocuous I missed my train so Ill be home on the 7:40, or I made it safely, Mom and Dad; love you, bye! subway riders could call 911 to say, There are three masked people with guns in the corner of the platform at my station, quietly text a friend to pass such information on to authorities, or even receive a warning.
Colorado authorities have adopted a different strategy. Rather than suppressing communication, they track it by a system developed prior to the 2008 Democratic National Convention one of those large gatherings with the potential to grow out of control but that must be allowed to take place.
But, the Denver Post says, The system is not designed to prevent crowds from forming, but it does give law enforcement a chance to prepare for the worst.
Not too many years ago, the idea of monitoring peoples communications would have seemed extremely alarming. Now, recognizing that the Internet offers little privacy, many people may consider snooping a fair price for public safety.
Americans should be very wary of banning communications altogether, even for a short time in a limited space. That smacks of prior restraint, and it limits far more than protestors ability to cause havoc. Lets not go any farther in this direction without thoroughly debating the consequences in public.
