Free Speech on a public bus?

raquor

Food for thought:
I take the bus to and from work as it's cheaper and only slightly more inconvenient than driving myself. Today I witnessed 3 young men (I'd estimate them to be in their early to mid 20's) get on the bus. They were being somewhat obnoxious (and I was sitting at the back with them at the front), rapping, being loud, and just more or less being 3 young guys.

Apparently the bus driver took issue with them and from what I gathered, asked them to lower their voices. I didn't hear the request but at a point they did get quiet enough for me to no longer notice them. Then suddenly the bus driver damn near killed some dude in the street as well as everyone on the bus by slamming on the brakes. This was followed by gesturing and yelling between the driver and the 3 young men. The driver subsequently got on his little bus phone (probably to dispatch or something) shortly after which the men continued yelling at the driver but stomped off the bus.

That is more or less as much information as I have to give so obviously I don't have all the details...just general impressions based on what I could hear and what I could see in actions and reactions. That being said it would appear that the driver took issue with the men rapping and being obnoxious and when they didn't stop he demanded that they vacate the bus.

I am just curious what thoughts, if any, the rest of you might have on the situation...seems like a reasonable topic for debate. I feel I should also mention that the three men were black, the driver white. I can't say if there was anything racial here or not but it was part of the equation.

MitchyD

Races aside, let's pretend they're all green for situations sake. Three green men get on a bus, and sit at the front of it behind a green driver... If they're being 'obnoxious' as you said, I assume that as just being generally dipsleasing to those around them... I would be bothered by three rapping greenies, but I can't see as to why they should stop. If they were being loud enough that they could perhaps wake a sleeping baby or something, then they should tone it down, not out of obligation, but to not be assholes. The bus driver technically makes the 'rules' but if the rules contradict the first ammendmant (Right? I'm Canadian) but losing it like that, slamming on the breaks and yelling him/herself is hypocrasy...
 
Tough call, I guess it depends on everyone's patience, however many people that may be.

Apreche

From what I've seen, you can say whatever you want on public subways or buses. However, boom boxes are not allowed and neither is interfering with transportation employees. In fact, in NYC it is often a felony to interfere with MTA staff. In general though, you can exercise your free speech in public transportation facilities and vehicles if you are not simultaneously doing something else wrong, like blocking the hallway.

Hitman Hart

When I went to Boston Latin, they somehow got buses from the MBTA to come pick us up and drive a slightly altered version of their normal routes. Sometimes we got drivers who had no patience for high school kids tried yelling futiley...I never understood why kids keep yapping away when an authority figure tells them not to...I've been punished more than once for other's actions when I was quiet,including several times where the driver kicked kids off the bus in a general area he thought was being noisy. That is wrong, in my opinion. I generally agree with the sentiment put forth here, don't be crazy loud, that's all.

MrRoboto

Well, if you are paying for the service, you have the right, but also have to respect the rights of others that also paid. I mean, at a public park is not a problem, in the bus it can be. Also the driver might say that he was being distracted by them.

WallyBman

If they're being 'obnoxious' as you said, I assume that as just being generally dipsleasing to those around them... I would be bothered by three rapping greenies, but I can't see as to why they should stop.

Just so you'll know, "greenies" is the plural of a ethnic slur against people of Portuguese decent. And it's one that might earn a beat down.

I don't take offense to it though, so no worries here.

The more you know...

And I think being loud and distracting to a bus driver is like yelling fire in a movie theater.

MitchyD

Nuh-Uh! Hulk would be more offended than a Portuguese dude, I bet!
 
Your analogy doesn't work - 3 dudes being douche bags does not equal panic, and everyone stampeding for an exit.

bunnikun

Nuh-Uh! Hulk would be more offended than a Portuguese dude, I bet!

Your analogy doesn't work - 3 dudes being douche bags does not equal panic, and everyone stampeding for an exit.

Well, it could. What if someone on a bus shouted "fire!". It'd be exercising their right to free speech, but it would still cause panic. Like Wally said, being distracting to the bus driver is putting others in danger.

HungryJoe

Let's assume that the state legislature passed a law that allowed a bus driver to expel passengers if the passengers distract him with speech. There are three different standards of review in speech cases, the rational basis standard, the intermediate scrutiny standard, and the strict scrutiny standard. The different standards apply to different types of speech. Political speech is given the most protection and thus legislation is reviewed with strict scrutiny.

Now, let's not even consider whether the rapper's speech should be reviewed by a lower standard, and let's not make me have to draft the statute. Here's how the analysis would go under strict scrutiny:

1. The statute was drafted to be content neutral. That is, the bus driver doesn't care what the content of the speech is, just that it's distracting him and thus causing a danger to him and the passengers.

2. The statute is narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate government interest. The legislature has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens from traffic accidents. It's narrowly tailored if that substantial interest would be less effectively achieved through other means, and if the statute is not too broad than is needed to achieve the interest. In our statute, we're assuming that the legislature simply gave the bus driver the discretion to put people out if they were being loud. That's pretty narrowly tailored.

3. Our statute leaves many other avenues of communication. The passengers can go anywhere else and engage in their speech.

Our statute would pass even under strict scrutiny. Look at Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) to find another strict scrutiny analysis.

Here is a fairly lengthy report on a bus driver's right to expel a passenger for being unruly and the question of whether people have a constitutional right to ride buses. Also, read the Cornell Annotated Constitution and The First Amendment Library. They're very helpful.

Finally, please remember that it's government action that creates the constitutional question. One's constitutional rights are not infringed just because some guy says, "Don't say that."

HMTKSteve

I thought "Greenies" referred to Green Party members.

WallyBman

It might, but "greenies" in reference to someone of Portuguese heritage is just like calling an Italian person a "wop," or like calling someone who is Irish a "mick."

Viga

The whole bus situation is a common one in my neck of the woods. Its usually some young group of black teens being loud and annoying and trying to be funny by going on people. It pisses me off but luckily there's a PSP with the volume turned on high in my bag. Anyway the bus drivers are usually black as well and will say shut up or get off. then its the old "who can be the most hardcore by yelling" contest and I'm late to work. Makes me want a car even more.



(Fingers up to public transportation)