I don't think that's true at all. Police in NYC are able to remove passengers who are being a nuisance, there just aren't enough of them to police every car of every subway train.

In my experience (as an NYC resident) the people causing problems on the subway aren't just being assholes for the sake of it. They're homeless, have mental issues or frequently both. I suspect when you visit Germany or Japan you're seeing the effects of much more comprehensive social nets that actually care for these people rather than let them fall through the cracks and live on subway trains.

▲

mothballed 6 days ago | parent [-]

You don't need police to trespass someone in private transit though. You can just tell them to leave, and if they don't they can be made to leave (depending on the state). If you're familiar with bouncers you understand this function.

Expecting a police to be available to every transit disturbance, I agree, is not going to end with a functional outcome.

▲

afavour 6 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure why there would be a distinction, really. The NYC subway has a specific transit police force who would act as the "bouncers" in this scenario. Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Disruptive passengers can be ejected on public transit.

▲

mothballed 6 days ago | parent [-]

You don't see the difference between every driver being able to be a bouncer, and only sworn police being able to be a bouncer?

Private citizens generally can't trespass people on public property. You have to get a policeman and the policeman has to cite a specific policy or law they have violated.

The private system in this case is way more pragmatic since every driver that is already on the bus has bouncing rights.

▲

afavour 6 days ago | parent [-]

I don't really understand what this has to do with the original discussion. You said:

> It applies to public transit specifically because people have freedom of speech to be assholes

My response to was to say I do not believe that is true at all. Passengers on public transit do not have freedom of speech to be assholes.

▲

mothballed 6 days ago | parent [-]

Well you just admitted it applies more to public transit because they need a police to kick them out. If I can be an asshole and no one is able to show up and stop me, I have effectively the freedom 'de facto' to be an asshole even if I do not have 'de jure' freedom to be an asshole.

Personally I'm not so sure police in NYC can kick people out for 1st amendment protected activity, which was what I specifically referenced the asshole activity being under the umbrella of. That was your assertion, that while I contested how pragmatic it might be, I never stated whether I believed it was true or not.

	▲	gusgus01 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Drivers are given the latitude to kick passengers off public transportation for a range of reasons including violating the rules of conduct. If I'm reading this correctly, you're talking about panhandling as an example of asshole activity that you believe is protected by the 1st amendment. Specifically, in NYC, it was ruled that panhandling is not protected speech on public transportation, see Young v New York City Transit Authority. Of course, if the passenger refuses to leave or stop, the driver can't physically force them to and must escalate to a police force. Although, I imagine that's similar in many other countries as well.