Supes giving up on cell phone warnings
San Francisco moved closer to dropping its fight against the wireless industry to require that cell phone retailers post radiation warnings.
In 2010, the Board of Supervisors passed then-Mayor Gavin Newsom’s legislation that would have required cell phone vendors to post in their stores the level of radiation emitted by the different devices. But the cell phone industry fought back hard, and a federal appeals court decided last year that the first-of-its-kind legislation violated First Amendment rights.
So at Tuesday’s board meeting, most supervisors held their noses and voted to approve a settlement promising that the city would agree to a permanent injunction against the ordinance, in exchange for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association waiving their claims to attorney’s fees.
“I am for pushing the envelope on something as important as this, but I think the legal reality is such that if we do not approve this settlement, we’re talking about having to pay half a million in legal fees,” Supervisor David Campos said. “It’s a very tough situation, but the last thing I want is to have the general fund give half a million
dollars to lawyers in this case.”
The long-term impacts of mobile phone use on the brain is still a hotly debated scientific topic. The ordinance would have ordered retailers to display posters and hand out fact sheets to cell phone buyers notifying customers that the World Health Organization identifies the phones’ emissions as a “possible carcinogen.”
Though the cellular trade group said such warnings could be misleading and that emissions are already federally regulated, many health activists were not happy with the supervisors’ decision.
The California Brain Tumor Association held a rally outside City Hall before the vote, and a letter to the board from several doctors said “people have a right to know about ways to use phones more safely.”
Supervisor John Avalos was the lone opposition vote.
“I can’t support this settlement based on a ruling that I think was way too extreme,” he said.
— Neal J. Riley
Supporters of Bradley Manning filed a discrimination complaint with the city’s Human Rights Commission against SF Pride on Tuesday following the parade organizers’ decision to revoke the grand marshal status of the army private accused of leaking classified military documents to WikiLeaks.
Manning, who is awaiting court martial, was selected last month as one of several grand marshals by a group of former grand marshals known as SF Pride’s electoral college. But SF Pride Board President Lisa Williams put out a statement one day later saying his nomination was “a mistake and should never have been allowed to happen.”
The complaint alleges that the SF Pride officials violated their own selection process and nondiscrimination policy, as well as the city’s equal opportunity laws.
“The Pride Board stomped on the moral convictions of the grand marshals who voted for Manning,” said attorney David Waggoner in a statement. “SF Pride a— recipient of City funding — is not allowed to discriminate against people just because they don’t like their moral support for Bradley.”
The complaint also claims that Williams told former board President Joey Cain that SF Pride would “do the right thing” and make Manning a grand marshal before issuing her statement repudiating the vote.
Lt. Dan Choi, the face of the movement to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell, lent his name to the complaint filed against the Pride board.
Manning supporters, including Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, planned to speak during the public comment portion of SF Pride’s Board of Directors meeting Tuesday night.
— Neal J. Riley