Again the question "What is a right?"

From Hotair.com, an interesting article on how the SF police were shutting off cell phone coverage around Golden Gate Bridge.

SF Transit Police Jam Cell Phone Reception to Disrupt Protest Share

In order to subvert planned demonstrations over a shooting by transit police, San Francisco transit officials blocked shut down cell phone reception transmission in train stations for three hours last Thursday.

Officials with the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, or BART, confirmed on Friday that they had shut down electrical power to cellular towers in four stations during rush hour, from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. The purpose of the blackout was to disrupt protesters’ plans to use mobile devices to coordinate a demonstration on train platforms.

BART officials insist their tactics were legal because they thwarted a protest in a station, which is not. The only flaw in that argument is that the transit authority’s actions constitute a clear violation of the First Amendment rights, not just of protesters but of uninvolved citizens who were merely trying to get home at the end of a workday.

OK I have one question but first let's look at the document he's referring to:

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.

Now I grant you I'm a gradumewit of Louisiana public edrcation, but Mr Portnoy, where in that the 1st Amendment is there a statement about access to cell phones? Please, I gotta know.

A local government's police department simple used it's resources to keep a situation from becoming hazardous. There is no Constitutional question, the iidiocy of judges who like to find law notwithstanding. Put another way, you have no right to a cell phone.

BTY sir, they did not jam the cell phones. Jamming is blocking a signal with a more powerful signal to prevent it from getting through. This was simply disabling the retrans towers in a specific area for a limited time. You may want to get your definitions or facts straight.

...A civil disturbance during commute times at busy downtown San Francisco stations could lead to platform overcrowding and unsafe conditions for BART customers, employees and demonstrators.

But in its efforts to defuse a dangerous situation, BART was inadvertently creating another one. As one commuter told PCWorld, the decision to disable mobile phone service prevented passengers from calling police or the fire department in case of an emergency.

The day after the planned demonstration, which failed, BART spokesman Jim Allison boasted to reporters, “We had a commute that was safe and without disruption.”

Maybe so, but at what cost to personal freedoms?

Excuse Mr Portnoy, there were cops and EMTs there to handle a demonstration. If there was another emergency there (accident, guy having a heart attack, etc) you think maybe the reportee could simple scream "HELP!" and get assistance?

In the words of the Bard, "Much ado about nothing."