Fire Alarm Companies

It \ s bizarre decision shut down mobile operator in one of his stations, disabled some potential protesters' s a lot of coverage extends \ over BART been "investigated. With the FCC, we 've heard several people say that it' s no First Amendment violation here, because it 's "not the right mobile phone service. "And though it 's true that it' s not a right, wireless service, the law is pretty clear that a right to try, not the government, a special form of speech by shutting down the infrastructure, the only to suppress this form of language specifically.

That is, the key issue isn't whether BART needed to keep its mobile phone service up all the time. If it goes down for maintenance, that's fine. But it can't turn it off if the decision is to try to block a particular type of speech. And that's exactly what BART clearly admitted to doing. Of course, it's not just the First Amendment at issue. There's also telecom law, and it appears BART violated that too.

Telecom attorney / consumer rights attorney Harold field has a long and detailed explanation as to why the shutdown both injured and telecom law is just a bad idea in general. It 's quite detailed and pointed to the specific citations in telecom law, which were injured and a number of relevant case law decisions. It 'sa lot in there, but here' sa key quote, as it could be applied almost immediately, BART is the situation:

In Pike v. Southern Bell Tel & Telegraph Co. , 81 So.2d 254 (Ala. 1955), Mr. Connor, in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Safety for the City of Birmingham, Southern Bell ordered the phone from a Louis Pike, Mr. Connor as "Remove described negro" by "questionable character" Mr. Connor said a "well-known lottery operator in the city" and with his cell phone for unspecified "illegal activities." reviewing cases from other countries (including People v. Brophy ) Was the Alabama Supreme Court that the right of every citizen to use a phone number was guaranteed by federal law, and could not be deprived without due process. As the Court stated:

Counteract the current trend and tendencies, Police State are all free Americans pause. Which is unconstitutional and extra-judicial extension of coercive governmental power, a frightening and cancerous growth on our body politic. As soon as we assume, of course, that a citizen was presumed innocent until proved guilty. The tendency of governments to shift the burden of proof for the citizens to prove their innocence is unsustainable and unbearable.

We are not able to glean from the bare conclusions set up in the letter of the Commissioner, whether it is claimed that the "illegal" use of the telephone was by the appellant, her husband, or a total stranger.  From aught that was alleged in the plea, except for the conclusion of the Commissioner, no "illegal" use of any type was made of this telephone by any one.

The announcement, which was allegedly received by the Telephone Company formulated in terms of a direct order from the Commissioner of Public Safety. What is the source of Mr. Connor authority to issue such an order? We know nothing about it. And we believe that none exists.

If we represented the opposite position, flowing course it would then follow that the phone company into action on the announcement of an overzealous police officer who is impressed without evidence and based on mere suspicion, with the bad character or justified would be filling a specific telephone company subscribers. The letter of Commissioner Connor set up in the defense is no defense. It is the phone company charge to show that the use of the telephone than in fact to justify their removal.

This devastation of a participant right to telephone service as a denial of due process guaranteed by the Constitution of 1901, art. 1, § 6 The gratuitous and arbitrary action of a police officer is no justification for an excerpt from this law. To determine that will justify the Telephone Company in discontinuation of service "order," a police officer would recognize a judicial police force that does not exist. The mere assertion of an executive officer he the Attorney General of the United States or a policeman hit by a remote, can not be accepted as a substitute for proof in court proceedings. No presumption arises that the adequacy of evidence based on a law enforcement official conclusions.

Similarly, the BART 's possession of "intelligence" that people can use their mobile phones to give to coordinate activities are not illegal "police force that does not exist." BART needs to go to the California agency with current law, the CPUC, and received a law authorizing the closure of the mobile operator.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story