We would not have picked San Francisco for the first American city where "They" would start using autocratic control tactics on its disgruntled citizens, but here it is: civil liberties advocates are binging on tinfoil hats full of margaritas because the apparently fascist hippies running popular urinal and firing range the Bay Area Rapid Transit District
or until someone is injured in a disturbance, and BART knew it was being organized via cellphones but failed to prevent it. and gets sued for a BILLION dollars.
How is free speech the "wrong grounds", if free speech is precisesly the grounds of the criticizm you're trying to address?
In any event, "free speech" is infringed only when the gov't restricts WHAT you can say. If BART says you get to yak on your phone outside the stations, but not inside, that's their prerogative, just as they can make rules against handing out pamphlets, hanging posters, and standing on a soapbox with a bullhorn to harangue everyone about Jeebus' imminent arrival.
I wonder if these idiots would whine about their "rights" if a theater blocked their cell phones during stage performances. (You also have to wonder how bright they are, if they can't figure out how to organize themselves while standing outdoors.)
But, but ... he has a Constitutional right to make everyone else miserable. (Next thing you know, they'll use remote-controlled tazers on anyone they see singing...)
Oh, BTW, the First Amendment doesn't mean you get to blast your boombox on the trains either ... if you're unhip and old-fashoned enough to still use one.
Maybe it's only the right to jabber quietly and pointedly, in an effort to screw up the system, that's protected. The protesters aren't entirely clear on that --- but I'm sure they'll explain it eventually.
If the contract requires "reasonable efforts" (or somesuch phrase) to provide a secure sytem, these third party bozos are about to get fired.
You're confusing the issues. Protests that shut down mass transit are, in fact, illegal -- it's called "civil disobedience" for a reason. You do your sit-in, you fuck up everybody's day, you get arrested, and maybe figure you've made your point ... but you don't go and whine about your "right" to do what you did. MLK understood this perfectly.
BTW, I've eaten my share of tear gas, so spare me the "poseur" shit.
Endless opportunities for douchebaggery, no question about it -- but after every fatal foul-up, they get raked over the coals for failing to prevent that dangerous situation.
Flash mob on a BART platform, people get pushed off onto the tracks (that could get VERY messy) ... and it's going to be all about how BART knew in advance where and when this would happen, and it was forseeable that the crowd would be too large for the space, and they did nothing to prevent it, and of course they're going to be sued for millions, and maybe some adminstrative schmuck will be charged with negligent manslaughter so as to keep the pitchfork-wavers appeased. Plausible scenario, right? So.... what would you do if you're the administratve schmuck in question?
I seem to recall a train operator in CA exercising his cellphone free speech rights a while back, and that didn't turn out well. That's why nobody objects to restricting the train operators' rights. But what about the guys in the control room? The transit cops on patrol? Fare collectors? Passengers? Passengers when you know some of them are planning to screw up the system? You draw the lines where you think you need to draw them, and you hope for the best.
or until someone is injured in a disturbance, and BART knew it was being organized via cellphones but failed to prevent it. and gets sued for a BILLION dollars.
That's Purgatory you're thinkin' of, Tommy. "Time already served" doesn't apply in Hell.
How is free speech the "wrong grounds", if free speech is precisesly the grounds of the criticizm you're trying to address?
In any event, "free speech" is infringed only when the gov't restricts WHAT you can say. If BART says you get to yak on your phone outside the stations, but not inside, that's their prerogative, just as they can make rules against handing out pamphlets, hanging posters, and standing on a soapbox with a bullhorn to harangue everyone about Jeebus' imminent arrival.
I wonder if these idiots would whine about their "rights" if a theater blocked their cell phones during stage performances. (You also have to wonder how bright they are, if they can't figure out how to organize themselves while standing outdoors.)
BZZZZT! Analogy fail.
Shutting down service to prevent the protesters from shutting down service... I wonder if it will work?
But, but ... he has a Constitutional right to make everyone else miserable. (Next thing you know, they'll use remote-controlled tazers on anyone they see singing...)
Oh, BTW, the First Amendment doesn't mean you get to blast your boombox on the trains either ... if you're unhip and old-fashoned enough to still use one.
Maybe it's only the right to jabber quietly and pointedly, in an effort to screw up the system, that's protected. The protesters aren't entirely clear on that --- but I'm sure they'll explain it eventually.
If they'd tried to ban the protest itself, that would be restraining speech, and you might have a shot at this argument.
He did exercise his right to bear arms -- he just made a poor choice in armaments.
If the contract requires "reasonable efforts" (or somesuch phrase) to provide a secure sytem, these third party bozos are about to get fired.
You're confusing the issues. Protests that shut down mass transit are, in fact, illegal -- it's called "civil disobedience" for a reason. You do your sit-in, you fuck up everybody's day, you get arrested, and maybe figure you've made your point ... but you don't go and whine about your "right" to do what you did. MLK understood this perfectly.
BTW, I've eaten my share of tear gas, so spare me the "poseur" shit.
Yeah, they're pretty bush-league protesters if they can't work their way around such a simple tactic.
"OMG! No Twitter from underground! What do we do noooow????"
Abbie Hoffman spins in his grave.
Endless opportunities for douchebaggery, no question about it -- but after every fatal foul-up, they get raked over the coals for failing to prevent that dangerous situation.
Flash mob on a BART platform, people get pushed off onto the tracks (that could get VERY messy) ... and it's going to be all about how BART knew in advance where and when this would happen, and it was forseeable that the crowd would be too large for the space, and they did nothing to prevent it, and of course they're going to be sued for millions, and maybe some adminstrative schmuck will be charged with negligent manslaughter so as to keep the pitchfork-wavers appeased. Plausible scenario, right? So.... what would you do if you're the administratve schmuck in question?
I seem to recall a train operator in CA exercising his cellphone free speech rights a while back, and that didn't turn out well. That's why nobody objects to restricting the train operators' rights. But what about the guys in the control room? The transit cops on patrol? Fare collectors? Passengers? Passengers when you know some of them are planning to screw up the system? You draw the lines where you think you need to draw them, and you hope for the best.
No bars in this bar? Now I'm confuzd.
They must be the same, since they're generating about the same level of angst.
Yeah, they need to move that whole scene back where it belongs, over by the pay telephones.