Violent Flash Mobs organized through social media

Galteeth

Yes, that is pretty shocking. I don't see how BART has the authority to do that. Also, the shutdown certainly impacted more then just the alleged protestors.

SteveL27

I must confess I'm thinking only about the recent incident where SF's BART shut down cell communications in advance of a protest, which ended up not happening. A lot of people seem to think that prior restraint and punishing people for what they MIGHT do is perfectly ok. This was the first time in the U.S. that a government agency shut down cell communications in advance of a lawful assembly of protesters.

Personally I'm troubled by this incident. It's a precedent that indicates worse things to come. That's why I asked how far the government can go in shutting down communications before anything unlawful occurs. Most people would agree the government can't shut down a newspaper ... but apparently they can shut down cell service. At least today. Tomorrow? Stay tuned.

Galteeth

Well, BART is apparently expecting another protest Monday. Anonymous started hacking them.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-200...aks-user-data/

Evo

They had a permit? You can't just protest anywhere, anytime, you need a permit.

SteveL27

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't say anything about a permit there. Do you think the citizens of Egypt should have gotten a permit from Mubarak before protesting his brutal rule?

Can you see how in general, requiring people to get a permit from the government, in order to protest against that government, would prevent any population from ever protesting against an evil government?

Are people really under the impression that you need a permit (from the government!) to protest against the government in this country?

But that said; you are not addressing the fundamental point of whether the government can shut down cell service to prevent people from protesting. I am willing to stipulate that a flash mob on a crowded subway platform is a hell of a bad idea. I'm not defending criminal vandalism. But in this particular case, there was no protest; only prior restraint of free speech rights.

In the future, should government agencies in the U.S. be allowed to shut down cellphones, shut down Internet service, shut down newspapers and television stations, to prevent the possibility that someone might break the law?

That's what's at issue. When foreign dictators do the exact same thing, we have no trouble condemning their actions. But recently Cameron's remarks in England, and BART's actions in San Francisco this past Thursday, have brought the issue home.

Evo

Did they have a permit? You do know that you have to have a permit for protests in public places?

Seriously, take some time to understand the law before you make posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_permit

Proton Soup

it's clear that he understands. and the wiki is making a pretty good argument that those laws are used to deny people of their rights.

Evo

It's clear from his posts that he was unaware of the law. I really wish people would invest some time in researching the facts before they post. A lot of members do take the time, so it's unfair that some people don't.

The wiki is whiney, IMO. If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors and manage the crowds, traffic, etc... It's called common sense, something that seems to be in short supply lately, IMO.

Proton Soup

well, i see the social media thing as neither here nor there. it's just a tool, and a few hooligans have learned how to use it. writing a new law won't help. if you come down hard on people for using this tool, they'll just choose another one. word of mouth, a pair of sneakers hanging over a power line, chalk on a sidewalk.

heck, the punitive nature of our system is likely part of what is stoking some of these events in the US, anyway. it's a kind of revenge.

turbo

Would MLK have been granted permits for people to gather in southern cities and march in support of civil rights? I don't think so. The use of police dogs, water-cannons, and truncheons, etc against peaceful marchers argues strongly against prior restraint (requiring permits from the authorities lest all the marchers be considered rioters and be dealt with accordingly.)

I lived through that time, and remember thinking "what have these people done to get treated this way?" It's easy to pose such questions as if they were dichotomies, but that is rarely useful or even marginally honest, IMO.

Evo

That's why I was so surprised in the London thread that everyone was so for pre-emptive and total police control, without question, and unreasonably harsh prison sentences, IMO.

ThomasT

I think that the more or less instantaneous and untraceable electronic communication capability isn't "just a tool". It's a very effective tool that seems to enable the hooligans to stay ahead of efforts to stop them, as the OP and other posters have pointed out.

I'm not sure about that. If penalties for the sorts of organized criminal activities that we're talking about were increased, and then uniformly enforced and prosecuted, then I think it would make a big difference. But I also think that none of that is likely to happen.

But those means are much less effective and probably wouldn't enable the hooligans to stay ahead of police.

Anyway, you can't come down hard on people simply for using electronic media. What might work is increasing sentences for those caught and convicted of crimes and having those tougher laws consistently enforced and prosecuted. But part of the problem is that all components of the criminal justice system (including enforcement, prosecution, and incarcaration) are incapable of handling the sort of increases that that would entail.

I have to disagree with this. Our system doesn't seem inordinately punitive to me. I feel very free, very fortunate, and very thankful as a citizen of the US for the sort of system that we have.

These 'wilding' organized criminal actions are the actions of kids who've grown up in cultures of violence and contempt for authority. This antisocial behavior isn't about anything important. It isn't revenge against abuse or insurrection. It's primarily just lots of very unwise young people doing what they can get away with. They're devoid of any sense of societal responsibility and respect for the rights of others.

If their actions are minimally punished or just excused for one reason or another, then they will not only continue but increase. And that's what I predict will be the case.

Jack21222

I have a hard time believing that anybody believes this.

Never once have I ever seen police protecting protesters. MANY times have I seen or heard of police beating, arresting, and even KILLING protesters.

Here's a video of police "protecting" a protester by shooting her in the head with rubber bullets for holding a sign, and then laughing afterward

Evo

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/116775#ixzz1V4EkfPez

Jack21222

You had to dig back 30 years to find an example? When I said I've never seen it happen, I should point out that I was under 1 year old when this particular instance occurred. This was before police adopted the tactic of firing rubber bullets at head-level to disperse crowds.

SteveL27

I'm painfully aware of the modern development of "free speech zones" and the like. You seem to believe that civil liberties are obtained by asking the government's permission. This is not the time or the place for a lengthy history lesson; but the absurdity of asking a repressive government's permission to protest that government's policies speaks for itself. If people waited for government permission, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus, gays would be in jail, and for that matter, we'd still be a British colony.

A totally unwarranted personal attack. It seems to me you're drinking a lot of government Kool-Aid. The U.S. Constitution gives people the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances. Permits and free speech zones are the latest attempt to prevent people from asserting their rights.

In any event, you continue to focus on the protesters. I've already said that I'll stipulate that a flash mob on a subway platform at rush hour is not a good idea. The question at hand is not whether this particular group of protesters are expressing themselves in an appropriate manner; the question is whether BART is within its rights, legally and morally, to shut down cell service in advance of a protest, before any crime has been committed? In fact, before anyone had even shown up?

It's a slippery slope problem. If what BART did is ok this time, what is the limit? That's why I started a few posts ago by asking if people believe that the government has the right to shut down a newspaper for printing things the government doesn't like. WikiLeaks comes to mind. Bradley Manning is in jail and at one point was being subjected to treatment that was illegal and bordered on psychological torture. His "crime?" Revealing some of the corruption and, uh, cattle excrement [LOL I got ***'d] at the heart of our recent foreign policy misadventures.

So ... can the government torture someone -- someone who has not yet been convicted of any crime, mind you -- because the government says so? Or do we still have due process in this country?

Evo my friend, due process and the rule of law are not something you ask the government permission for. Due process and the rule of law are things people fight for every day in the courts and in politics and in every interaction with the government. And throughout history, when the courts and the political system didn't work ... people in this country laid down their lives for due process and the rule of law.

If BART can turn off cell service before anyone even shows up to protest; then what CAN'T the government do, in your opinion?

I'm sure President Mubarak would agree. I just wonder if you've thought through the consequences of your own naive trust in getting government's "permission" to oppose its policies.

rhody

State Aid Failed to Stem U.K. Unrest
and
I am not sympathsizing with the rioter's in any way. That being said, a hostile relationship between the police and people who are forced to live there is almost a 100% guarantee that history repeats itself. Sadly in this case, it has proven true. It isn't all about the money in the end, it is about lack of respect. Maybe this time, this issue will be addressed in the long term. It will be tough to do, I am sure of that.

Rhody...