Etherplex

There was a recent shutdown of cellular service within the BART tunnels (on August 11th, between 4 and 7PM).  The story was covered widely and is worthy of note, I think, if for no other reason than the variety of opinions it engendered.  I first heard of it through the discussion that sprang up on Google+.  It's a good story because it has a lot of elements that provide opportunity of nuanced analysis, I think.

The story is essentially that some protesters were allegedly planning to enter the paid areas of the BART stations and disrupt train service to protest the fatal July 3rd shooting of a man armed with a knife by BART police.  One position is that a state-owned agency (BART) shut down the citizens' means of communication, and the action was therefore an impingement on free speech and was worthy of a Middle-East dictator.  The other position is that public safety was at risk, and that the limited (in both space and time) curtailment of cell service to disrupt the protest is justified.

I think I'm in the second camp, and I'd briefly like to defend that position by drawing some lines in a field of gray.

• The primary mandate of BART is the continuity of its transit service, not the provision of cellular service during transit.
• The threat being responded to was credible; there had already been protests that had shut down stations in the system last month.
• Protests in many urban areas require permits to ensure proper police presence to protect both the protesters and the bystanders.  This protest had no such permit, and the planned protest in fact constituted an illegal action that likely created significant safety concerns for legitimate users of the BART system.
• The removal of cellular service within the subway was clearly not a curtailment of political speech; the protesters are free to get their message out in a multitude of ways, including right outside the BART station, or in the non-paid areas of the station.  The removal of cellular service was intended to inhibit their ability to share intelligence on the location of BART police so they could direct their protests to areas least protected and shutdown service there.
• The fact that a service is provided by a government agency neither means that the service is a right, nor that its removal constitutes a violation of citizens' civil liberties.
• The cell repeaters that were disabled were in fact owned and operated by BART.  This was not a case where the government reached out into private infrastructure (like that owned by AT&T, Verizon, Sprint or T-Mobile) and forced them to shut down service.  I think they made those providers aware of their action, but based on the stories I've read, there was no strong-arming of the private sector involved.

I'm not sure that's an exhaustive list, but I think it represents some of the big differences I see between this action and, say, revolutions in the Middle-East.

In summary, I'm not at all sure conspiring to elude authorities so you can commit crimes constitutes "protected speech".  I would reign in the claims of first amendment breach here.