NJT to Deploy 300 Customer Service Reps

In an effort to help speed travelers during the RNC, NJT will deploy 300 customer service reps to Hoboken, Secaucus, Newark, NYP and other points along the service corridors. I wonder if any of them will answer phones at the "always busy" hotline?

One additional regulation has been added: customers may not bring sticks (as in placard holders) aboard NJT equipment. I wonder if that passes constitutional muster? This seems like a clear infringement on speech and public assembly by a government agency.

http://www.njtransit.com/nn_press_relea ... SE_ID=1447

Sticks can be used as weapons. That is independent of free speech laws and can be controlled. Not to mention that neither NJT stations, NJT property (trains) nor Amtrak property (the NEC, Penn Station) are public places.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Sticks can be used as weapons. That is independent of free speech laws and can be controlled. Not to mention that neither NJT stations, NJT property (trains) nor Amtrak property (the NEC, Penn Station) are public places.

------------------

OK, but the rules are being implemented just for this event. That would suggest it's not otherwise a concern of NJT. So, these one week rules are designed to impede protest.

People are free to bring metal tipped umbrellas, canes and other elements similar to sticks. These can be used as weapons. Even during the convention period.

I wish Amtrak would do that during the RNC. Also will their be NJT Police on duty?

AmtrakFan

People are free to bring metal tipped umbrellas, canes and other elements similar to sticks

If you see an inordinate number of umbrellas on a dry day, or a high number of canes carried by people who are not likely to lean on them, then you can say that you are looking at a problem.

With respect to the sticks, demonstrators may not carry such onto the US Capitol or Supreme Court grounds in Washington, DC. Have to stay on the public street sidewalks. So that should indicate that the ban passed Constitutional muster.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

People are free to bring metal tipped umbrellas, canes and other elements similar to sticks

If you see an inordinate number of umbrellas on a dry day, or a high number of canes carried by people who are not likely to lean on them, then you can say that you are looking at a problem.

These days, this is considered "profiling". It used to be considered "intuition", "instinct", or "common sense". Which of course are not politically correct.

But then again, neither am I.

Ken: Those places are not means of travel, however. What, one needs to drive if they want to carry a placard holder?

And yesterday when Hoboken reopened the reps were just standing in a line being of no use what so ever. Not that it was their fault. They only had lists of information that was totally inaccurate due to the shutdown and had no way of getting any accurate information.

Ken W2KB wrote:With respect to the sticks, demonstrators may not carry such onto the US Capitol or Supreme Court grounds in Washington, DC. Have to stay on the public street sidewalks. So that should indicate that the ban passed Constitutional muster.

----------------

Not necessarily. If the Supreme Court etc always bans the presence of sticks, that's one thing. If NJT only bans the presence of sticks for the RNC week alone, that's quite another. And, would likely be vulnerable to legal challenge.

However, if NJT routinely bans sticks all the time, that would prob be OK as it's not tied to a specific event.

Lackawanna484 wrote:

Ken W2KB wrote:With respect to the sticks, demonstrators may not carry such onto the US Capitol or Supreme Court grounds in Washington, DC. Have to stay on the public street sidewalks. So that should indicate that the ban passed Constitutional muster.

----------------

Not necessarily. If the Supreme Court etc always bans the presence of sticks, that's one thing. If NJT only bans the presence of sticks for the RNC week alone, that's quite another. And, would likely be vulnerable to legal challenge.

However, if NJT routinely bans sticks all the time, that would prob be OK as it's not tied to a specific event.

Actually I think just the opposite. The courts (lower so far) have (with a few notable exceptions) been quite friendly toward the concept of specific limits geared towards the RNC (such as limiting the areas protestors can gather) because of the unique security risk this event in these times entails. I think the courts would be more hostile to blanket bans at all times in all places as opposed to bans related to specific risk factors like the RNC or in specific areas of high risk such as the Capitol.

But, as interesting as this discussion is, we need to be careful lest ClubCar jump in and declare it ridiculous and irrelevant becasue it does not meet his criteria for what should be discussed (cheap shot I know but I could not resist. My anger at the last little flair up that he caused has not totally subsided).

Mark Schweber wrote:

Lackawanna484 wrote:

Ken W2KB wrote:With respect to the sticks, demonstrators may not carry such onto the US Capitol or Supreme Court grounds in Washington, DC. Have to stay on the public street sidewalks. So that should indicate that the ban passed Constitutional muster.

----------------

Not necessarily. If the Supreme Court etc always bans the presence of sticks, that's one thing. If NJT only bans the presence of sticks for the RNC week alone, that's quite another. And, would likely be vulnerable to legal challenge.

However, if NJT routinely bans sticks all the time, that would prob be OK as it's not tied to a specific event.

Actually I think just the opposite. The courts (lower so far) have (with a few notable exceptions) been quite friendly toward the concept of specific limits geared towards the RNC (such as limiting the areas protestors can gather) because of the unique security risk this event in these times entails. I think the courts would be more hostile to blanket bans at all times in all places as opposed to bans related to specific risk factors like the RNC or in specific areas of high risk such as the Capitol.

But, as interesting as this discussion is, we need to be careful lest ClubCar jump in and declare it ridiculous and irrelevant becasue it does not meet his criteria for what should be discussed (cheap shot I know but I could not resist. My anger at the last little flair up that he caused has not totally subsided).

Kumbiyah My Lord, Kumbiyah.....

Mark Schweber wrote:

Lackawanna484 wrote:

Ken W2KB wrote:With respect to the sticks, demonstrators may not carry such onto the US Capitol or Supreme Court grounds in Washington, DC. Have to stay on the public street sidewalks. So that should indicate that the ban passed Constitutional muster.

----------------

Not necessarily. If the Supreme Court etc always bans the presence of sticks, that's one thing. If NJT only bans the presence of sticks for the RNC week alone, that's quite another. And, would likely be vulnerable to legal challenge.

However, if NJT routinely bans sticks all the time, that would prob be OK as it's not tied to a specific event.

Actually I think just the opposite. The courts (lower so far) have (with a few notable exceptions) been quite friendly toward the concept of specific limits geared towards the RNC (such as limiting the areas protestors can gather) because of the unique security risk this event in these times entails. I think the courts would be more hostile to blanket bans at all times in all places as opposed to bans related to specific risk factors like the RNC or in specific areas of high risk such as the Capitol.

------------------------

I'm not following your reasoning here. I argued that the universal rule applied the supreme court, etc would be OK, but a rule specifically directed at the RNC traveler for one week only might be vulnerable.

I'd suspect the court would be open to arguments that NJT was acting in a way to restrict public expression, rather than to promote safety, if it didn't routinely block the transport of sticks during other crowded periods, such as conventions or graduations, or the Jersey shore trains during the summer.

We don't know that NJT doesn't routinely block sticks under their Code of Conduct, we're just making the assumption it's an RNC specific change.

Lackawanna484 wrote:

Mark Schweber wrote:

Lackawanna484 wrote:

Ken W2KB wrote:With respect to the sticks, demonstrators may not carry such onto the US Capitol or Supreme Court grounds in Washington, DC. Have to stay on the public street sidewalks. So that should indicate that the ban passed Constitutional muster.

----------------

Not necessarily. If the Supreme Court etc always bans the presence of sticks, that's one thing. If NJT only bans the presence of sticks for the RNC week alone, that's quite another. And, would likely be vulnerable to legal challenge.

However, if NJT routinely bans sticks all the time, that would prob be OK as it's not tied to a specific event.

Actually I think just the opposite. The courts (lower so far) have (with a few notable exceptions) been quite friendly toward the concept of specific limits geared towards the RNC (such as limiting the areas protestors can gather) because of the unique security risk this event in these times entails. I think the courts would be more hostile to blanket bans at all times in all places as opposed to bans related to specific risk factors like the RNC or in specific areas of high risk such as the Capitol.

------------------------

I'm not following your reasoning here. I argued that the universal rule applied the supreme court, etc would be OK, but a rule specifically directed at the RNC traveler for one week only might be vulnerable.

I'd suspect the court would be open to arguments that NJT was acting in a way to restrict public expression, rather than to promote safety, if it didn't routinely block the transport of sticks during other crowded periods, such as conventions or graduations, or the Jersey shore trains during the summer.

We don't know that NJT doesn't routinely block sticks under their Code of Conduct, we're just making the assumption it's an RNC specific change.

What I was trying to say was that I think a court would take the position that the RNC is a special situation - different in magnitude from pretty much every other possible event - that would allow special rules. I work directly across from Penn Station. I can tell you that this situation is unprecedented. Never before, even during other conventions, has there been this level of security. So, given the times and the unique nature of the event I think courts would give the benefit of the doubt that special rules during the convention are an acceptable response to the unique security risk of the event and not just an attempt to limit free speech.

Mark, I think your view is correct. An outright ban is more intrusive than one that reasonably accomodates the exercise of free speech in special circumstances. It should be noted that delegates and guests are not permitted to carry in anything that might be used as a weapon, such as an umbrella, into the Garden. Any that's with everyone pre-screened and having special IDs to wear. A proliferation of sticks on the train could be somewhat of a poke ones eye our hazard in any event, I suppose.