As I understand it, no. The way Free Speech works in regards to newspapers (which are the closest well-established analogue to cellular) is you have the right to say whatever you want, in your own newspaper, because you own it.
You do not own the cellular networks, in the same way you do not own the San Francisco Chronicle, and you do not have the right to have your speech carried by either.
How then does free speech interact with cellular networks? Well, if you owned and operated your OWN cellular network (no matter the size, technology or hardware) the government cannot prevent you from transmitting to others (unless, of course, you are in violation of FCC regulations)
In short, you have a right to speech (broadcast), but there are no requirements that say intermediaries you do not own must pick up and deliver your speech (broadcast).
What about the fact that not only do I own my phone, but I am in a contract with the carrier to provide service for which I pay for. Thus, there needs to be measurable compensation for anytime the contract I pay for service of is inhibited by the carrier or any third party providers participating in the delivery off service governed by that contract.
This could be an important subject, where the service's impingement could realistically represent a violation of my constitutional rights.
The problem is that is will be argued that using their service is at will, being on BART property is at will etc.. etc.. -- but then this is a farked up loophole to the rights within the constitution whereas we are allowing for the constitution to only be upheld in a silo of presence, property and service I directly own.
Does this mean, then, that if I have a mortgage on my home - that truly it is the banks property and therefore am not entitled to my rights?
Why so, then, would we say that when I am out of my house, on public or private property, that my rights are suspended?
We need to either protect communication and speech throughout - or not. I do not see much middle ground here.
Finally I agree that such efforts to cutoff such a fundamental service is malfeasance in that it would prevent any notification of imminent danger outside the group.
This will likely be fought by only permitting 911 - but what if the threat is from the system itself. This is directly opposed to the constitution which is designed to uphold inalienable rights of the people against tyranical systems of governance... if the only authority you can contact is the one who is directly attacking you - this is entirely flawed.
You honestly think BART is part of your contract with AT&T/Verizon?
You honestly think when AT&T/Verizon inhibits your cellular service, your constitutional rights are being violated? You are aware that a private party cannot, by definition, violate your constitutional rights, as they are only protection from government, not private parties?
When you have a mortgage on your home, you own your home. It is simply used as a security, which means if you cease payment it will then no longer be your property. In any case, as your home is not a transmission vector for your speech, unlike air/radio/newspaper, ownership is irrelevant to free speech. However, if you do not own the home, damn straight you don't have the right to assembly there, any more than your neighbor has the right to assembly in your living room.
You are trying to sneak "communication" in with "speech". Communication is not a right. Recall that the First Amendment has been alternatively dubbed "Freedom of Expression".
I really wish folks would cease with this bandying about how everything should be a right. It is especially ridiculous when it is declared that a service provided by a business is a right, and it makes me wonder if many people are actually familiar with the Bill of Rights. It's hard to imagine you could be, and not understand how fundamentally different those wonderful 10 are from things like cell service and internet.
"You are aware that a private party cannot, by definition, violate your constitutional rights, as they are only protection from government, not private parties?"
Superb. That means I can finally ban all redheads from my restaurant.
"You are trying to sneak "communication" in with "speech"."
Oh go fuck yourself sideways with a cactus, that is the most retarded reading of the the first thatI have ever heard. FURTHERMORE, you make the mistake of thinking that we only have the rights specifically mentioned on some piece of paper. This is not the case.
BART is not under contract or obligation to provide you with cell phone service. They offered this as a convenience to their customers, nothing more. They are well within their right, in my opinion, to not provide it. Just because people got used to it doesn't mean it's automatically a "right" of theirs now. (I could go off on a rant about the overly developed sense of self-entitlement that seems to be running rampant, but I won't).
And there is no obligation on their part to provide access to 911. I'm sure there is some requirement for them to provide emergency assistance, but that doesn't mean passengers being able to call on their own.
If anything, I see this as being the end of their deployment of repeaters altogether. "We tried to be nice, people got upset, it became a political shitstorm, so we'll eliminate the problem and remove them so there are no future issues."
My point is that our understanding needs to evolve. While i appreciate your opinion, I think that the definitions you are holding onto so vehemently are outdated.
I am not claiming my statement should be absolute but that these ideas and definitions need to be continuously looked at. The very nature of these concepts are disrupted, adapted and morphed with the growth of civilization, thus the basis of design for societal frameworks needs to be adapted as well.
I will add that if BART had instead employed the use of cell phone jammers, this would be much murkier. On the one hand, you could argue a jammer is essentially "intercepting" your transmission. On the other hand (the view that I favor, knowing a thing or two about radio) you could argue the jammer is in reality simply "drowning you out"- which could infringe upon your right to be heard, except I don't know if such a right actually exists.
It would boil down, I think, to "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law". Personally, while I am in general a "spirit of the law" kind of guy, I find myself falling back on the letter for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. Back then they meant what they said, and they said what they meant - with incredible clarity- and it's interesting to see how much sense a rigorous "letter of the law" interpretation of those ancient laws often makes.
As I understand it, no. The way Free Speech works in regards to newspapers (which are the closest well-established analogue to cellular) is you have the right to say whatever you want, in your own newspaper, because you own it.
You do not own the cellular networks, in the same way you do not own the San Francisco Chronicle, and you do not have the right to have your speech carried by either.
How then does free speech interact with cellular networks? Well, if you owned and operated your OWN cellular network (no matter the size, technology or hardware) the government cannot prevent you from transmitting to others (unless, of course, you are in violation of FCC regulations)
In short, you have a right to speech (broadcast), but there are no requirements that say intermediaries you do not own must pick up and deliver your speech (broadcast).