They already disable your wireless functions in public transit there.

Turn off FB and twitter feeds, but they're so clueless they fail to grok you can piggyback off a hotspot and pinterest things using encrypted images prefilled with info.

The more you squeeze, the more will slip through your fingers.

The law only covers infractions in vehicles or at transit centers and stops.

So, maybe don't protest in vehicles or at transit stops in a way that anyway would make you an asshole to the people who just want to ride transit and not participate in your protests.

According to the link, there's language addressing this:

shall not be interpreted to affect any lawful activities permitted or First Amendment rights protected under the laws of this state or applicable federal law,

I can't tell you not to be paranoid how this could be used nevertheless, but no one here is surprised something like this is going up the chain after a bunch of fucksticks kept repeatedly shutting down BART during commute times last year. The protesters may have a righteous cause, but once again they're shoot themselves in the foot by alienating and annoying the general population.

I certainly don't have an issue with this. If you do, maybe you're part of the problem.

I have no problem with this. Obviously it would be a huge issue if people were prohibited from riding transit for protests on, say, a street corner. But there's a big difference between that and individuals who choose to fuck up everyone else's day by completely shutting down or creating major delays in crucial infrastructure. You can do it, but don't expect there to not be consequences!

And look - yes, for some people a BART delay is an annoying inconvenience. But some people actually do work hourly and/or for really shitty employers, and a major delay such as those caused by protesters could mean lost wages or even getting fired. It is not just a minor inconvenience that we should all learn to put up with for a major form of transportation to be shut down by assholes, whether those assholes are crazy people who've decided to run on top of trains for fun (YES, this happened last Thursday) or protesters with a legitimate cause who really do need to take their protests elsewhere. Whatever your motivations, this type of behavior should be discouraged and punished.

How about people who excrete into the escalators?

an inoperative escalator at the Civic Center Station was broken open for repair and found to be so clogged with hobo crap that a hazardous-materials team had to be called in for de-pooping.

BART spokesman Jim Allison stated that five of the nine elevators in the station were not working, and while there are many reasons an elevator can break down, the late-night damage done to them is one of the main causes.

http://www.poopreport.com/Excessive-turd…

Good lord, Brendan, do you really think your readers are so stupid that they won't notice a mischaracterization of this as a law that could be used to prevent people from reaching a protest site?

The law addresses behavior on public transportation. No, it can not in any way be used to prevent a citizen from commuting to the site of a protest.

It does introduce new penalties for protests that disrupt public transportation, and one can of course object to such penalties for any number of reasons. But damn, man, don't you think it might be a bad idea to insult your audience by leading with the total bullshit propaganda, instead of the substance?

Does this apply to other transit systems too?

If so, I want to see how MUNI, for example, or MTA Los Angeles, is going to enforce the banning. Is there going to be a xerox of faces taped to the dashboard every morning?

I recall Westlake Center here wouldn't allow protestors carrying anti-war signs to walk through the mall to the monorail. If carrying a sign or wearing a t-shirt is equated to protesting then it might be hard to get to your protest location without exposing any of your dangerous messages to unwary commuters.

@10: See 3 above: "...shall not be interpreted to affect any lawful activities permitted or First Amendment rights protected under the laws of this state or applicable federal law..."

This is not aimed at people wearing T shirts. Believe me, people in the Bay Area who are NOT protesting anything have way more offensive clothing (or lack of clothing) on BART and I don't see that changing anytime soon. This is aimed at actual actions by protesters that have actually caused significant problems and delays for people simply trying to get to work. By similar comparison, I'm sure it's illegal to march out onto the Bay Bridge during rush hour, whether you are protesting something or not.

@10

Yes, if you've selected a route to your protest that goes through private property, you might run afoul of private property owners who object to the picture on your T-shirt or the words on your sign. That is indeed a potential problem, but it's not the problem under discussion.

California, über alles! California-Üuuuuuuber-alles!

The major problem with policies like this is that they allow someone to declare lawful behavior (e.g., being on a public transit vehicle, being in a public park, being in a particular area of town in public, etc.) to be a violation of law. There's not a shred of due process. Some cop or security guard says, "next time you're here, it's unlawful," and on his or her say-so, it is so. Our laws are not supposed to work this way.

@14 - There's not a shred of due process.

This is absolutely true, provided you simply ignore the part where people have to be tried and convicted of violating the law in question before the punishment can be imposed.

@15: I spoke too soon. Skimming the referenced ordinance, I see that unlike our SOPA, SODA, and Park Exclusion Notice policies here in Seattle, this one hinges on having been convicted.

The right to protest does not mean a right to disrupt public transit, fucking over other people just trying to get to work or wherever. Just like it does not extend to sitting in the street or blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic.

@17: Giffy, yours is the first mention of a right to protest I see here.

@16

And of course our Stay Out of Prostitution Area, Stay Out of Drug Area, and Park Exclusion orders are all issued (or not) by judges, not by policemen, and only after arrests for specific violations. It's true that just like the more familiar Restraining Order, SOPAs, SODAs, and PEOs do not require a trial and conviction. It would not be accurate, however, to claim they are issued "without any due process."

The bad old Trespass Admonishment program actually did give the SPD the power to unilaterally bar people from collections of properties for up to a year, but as you no doubt know, that policy was widely recognized as unfair, and thus was scrapped in favor of the single-property Trespass Warning similar to trespass enforcement policy in most of the US.

@18 other than the US Constitution, you mean.