PDA

View Full Version : A Man in U.S. arrested for protesting outside free speech zone.



Vapour
26th June 2003, 00:53
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1863097

[Quote]
In defence of elderly hippies

Jun 19th 2003 | COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
From The Economist print edition


The Justice Department doesn't seem to know when to stop

BRETT BURSEY will be back in court again, fighting the forces of reaction, on June 24th. The veteran protester was arrested last October for trespassing at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport as he held a sign (“No War for Oil?E while waiting for George Bush to arrive.

This was not a new experience for him. Thirty-three years earlier, at almost the same spot, Mr Bursey was tossed in the paddy wagon for holding a sign that criticised another war (Vietnam) while waiting for another Republican president (Richard Nixon) to show up.

The 1969 case against Mr Bursey was dropped when the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that anti-war demonstrators could not be charged with trespassing if they were on public property. Shortly after his most recent arrest, the trespassing charge against Mr Bursey was also dropped. But in March the local US attorney, Strom Thurmond junior, suddenly brought federal charges against Mr Bursey under a little-known law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas the president is visiting.

Mr Bursey's trial will take place in the new courthouse in Columbia, named after the now 100-year-old Strom Thurmond senior (who, as it happens, helped his son get his current job). If convicted, Mr Bursey, who is 54, faces six months in jail and a $5,000 fine. Yet a growing number of liberal sorts seem to think that the real issue is the intolerance of John Ashcroft's Justice Department—and, in particular, its intention to start using the rare Secret Service law to get rid of protesters.

Last month, 11 members of Congress, including one Republican and several members of the House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, sent a letter to Mr Ashcroft urging him to drop charges against Mr Bursey. They insisted that “no plausible argument can be made that Mr Bursey was threatening the president by holding a sign which the president found politically offensive.?E

Indeed, it is extremely hard to see why Mr Thurmond has picked on Mr Bursey out of all the people in the Secret Service zone. None of the other protesters with him was arrested. Neither were any of the several hundred supporters of the president who were holding equally dangerous (but pro-Bush) signs as they stood near the hangar where the president was to speak.

The prosecutors say that Mr Bursey was not in a special “free-speech zone?Ethat was set up for protesters half a mile from the hangar. The pro-Bush people did not need to be there because they were not protesting. Mr Bursey told the cops, defiantly, that he was under the impression that the whole of America was a free-speech zone.

Bill Nettles, Mr Bursey's lawyer, claims that the case is being driven not by the young Mr Thurmond but by higher-ups in Washington, who want a new way to stifle dissent. “This is the type of small-brained decision that could only have been made by bureaucrats inside the Beltway,?Esays the lanky Mr Nettles. Mr Thurmond's office declines to discuss the case. A spokesman says the office is aware of the letter from the 11 congressmen, but “unless we get a directive from Attorney-General Ashcroft's office [telling us to drop or settle the case], we shall proceed.?E

Mr Bursey's supporters note that Mr Ashcroft's men have decided to test their anti-protester law in a conservative stronghold, where the armed forces tend to be viewed more generously than elderly hippies and where the case will be heard by a judge without a jury. It is easy to see how Mr Ashcroft might not warm to Mr Bursey, who heads a “progressive network?Eof liberal organisations, used to edit an alternative newspaper, and has organised protests against, among other things, American war policy, nuclear power, racism and the Confederate flag.

In his various causes, both noble and foolish, Mr Bursey has been arrested dozens of times. Three decades ago he spent nearly two years in prison for spraying anti-war slogans on government property during the Vietnam war. Whether he deserves to go to prison next week for waving a sign is another matter entirely.

[Quote]

Homeland Insecuirty at work. In someway, I find it funny because I don't live in U.S.

Charlie Kondek
26th June 2003, 14:23
Oh, so Free Speech is allowed in ZONES now? Good thing. Are we going to have zones for other Constitutional amendments? A slavery-free zone? A zone where prohibition on liquor has not been repealed?

Soulend
26th June 2003, 15:13
Heck, if they can have zones where the 2nd Amendment cannot be exercised, why not the 1st Amendment too!

theletch1
27th June 2003, 23:36
We have zones where the prohibition of alchohol hasn't been repealed... they're called "dry counties" and they are all over the place in the southern U.S. If memory serves, Lynchburg, Tn is a dry county and it is the home of the Jack Daniels distillery!

Jeff Letchford

shadow42
28th June 2003, 04:10
good thing this article sounds like a very unbiased report of the facts.

As for a "little known law" that allows the secret service to restrict access to where the president is going, I don;t know if you've ever tried to drive through Manhattan when the prez is in town, but it isnt pretty, and that little known law is pretty well established in my book.
While it does sound kinda iffy, I'm sure theres more to this on both sides than we have here. There pretty much always is.

Soulend
28th June 2003, 11:23
Originally posted by theletch1
We have zones where the prohibition of alchohol hasn't been repealed... they're called "dry counties" and they are all over the place in the southern U.S. If memory serves, Lynchburg, Tn is a dry county and it is the home of the Jack Daniels distillery!

Jeff Letchford

Yup, you're quite right. Where I recruited in NC there were several dry counties. They would say that it was to cut down on drunk driving, but now when people ran out of beer instead of weaving two blocks to the corner store they would jump in their cars and attempt to drive two counties over to get more...

Mitch Saret
28th June 2003, 22:24
What happens if you joke about bombs in an airport? What if you yell fire in a crowded theater where there is no fire? Tidbits like this exist throught the country.

If you were to look closer at the constitution you would find that freedom of speech is not unrestricted speech. There is no freedom for saying anything you want anywhere you want. If that were the case there would be no slander or libel lawsuits.

Vapour
29th June 2003, 22:05
Originally posted by Mitch Saret
What happens if you joke about bombs in an airport? What if you yell fire in a crowded theater where there is no fire? Tidbits like this exist throught the country.

If you were to look closer at the constitution you would find that freedom of speech is not unrestricted speech. There is no freedom for saying anything you want anywhere you want. If that were the case there would be no slander or libel lawsuits.

Your understanding of right to free speech in U.S. is rather shallow. If a mob godfather asked his lieutenant to *take care* of someone, he could be charged with murder based on his speech. It's same with shouting "fire" in crowded theatre. Given it is such fundamental part of consititution, your can restrict such right only if one can show that speech come in direct confilit with other part of consitution. Expressing political view is not one of it.

As stated in the artcile, not only the guy was not an threat in any sence, people who were doing exactly the same like him with pro Bush view were not charged under the law. The article did not question the law itself. What it questioned was apparent abuse of the law by the authority for its political purpose.

Mitch Saret
30th June 2003, 17:27
If you look again at what I wrote, and I assume you did as you quoted it, I never said anything as to whether this gentleman was rightfully or wrongfully arrested. All I mentioned was that freedom of speech is not unrestricted speech.

Your example of the mob boss is only partialy correct. Based on your scenario he would be charged with something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder, or murder for hire, or something along those lines. A DA trying to make a name for himself might try and charge hime directly.

I stand by my statement about free speech. As to the gentleman charged, I suppose if I were in favor of Mr. Bush I would think he was an idiot and want him in jail. If I were a Gore supporter I would cry foul and lash out at the administration. it all depends on which side of the street you're walking on.

Back to the article for a moment....I notice that Brett Bursey is a veteran protester, and that he was arrested back in 1969 for protesting the VietNam war and president Nixon. I ask this question because why did he just start to protest that conflict after Nixon took office? The U.S. involvement in Viet Nam had been going on for several years. Is it that Mr. Bursey only protests against opposition party politicians and not events themselves?

Just some extra food for thought.

Vapour
1st July 2003, 04:28
I guess you really nitpick on argumennt so here you go. I only said mob godfather *could* be charged. If his liuetenant kill someone, he really *could* be charged with murder.

As to the gentleman charged, I suppose if I were in favor of Mr. Bush I would think he was an idiot but I don't want him in jail. If I were a Gore supporter I would cry foul and lash out at the administration. the right to free speech doesn't depends on which side of the street you're walking on.

As of his activity in Nixon era, I don't think a veteran protestor would stop protesting during Clition era.

Just some extra food for thought or am I nitpicking?

Mitch Saret
1st July 2003, 19:32
I don't think you are nitpicking....and I hope I am not either. I do think we are on basically the same page. My main point initially was the free speech issue. So many people who have not read the documents to which they refer mistake what they are referring to. The thing here was the free speech...didn't matter what the guy had done or hadn't done.

The other part was some of these protesters......again, not necessarily Mr. Bursey, they only seem to come out of the woodwork when it suits them politically, not principally. An example were the protesters against the recent war in Iraq. If they were against this they should have been against President Clinton bombing them in 1998. That is principally they should have been. politically I didn't see any major news coverage of any protests back then....although I did see some local coverage of a small protest that amounted to nothing much. Basically never war for any reason.

Vapour
1st July 2003, 20:26
I think the size of protest is proportionate to relative size difference between Clinton's few missile bombing and Gulf War II. If you bothered to look at other side of fence during these period, you actually notice that there was much debate and protest concerning Clinton's forieng policy.

It's similar to the myth of "liberal media". Here is an example.

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html (Second section)

I found above site quite funny. And here is an example where there are no issue to complain about the constitutional abuse.

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i40/40c00301.htm

wendy ongaro
4th July 2003, 01:20
The Bill of Rights Pared Down to a Manageable Six (http://www.theonion.com/onion3847/bill_of_rights.html)

Mitch Saret
4th July 2003, 05:20
Vapour,

I looked at your 2 site reccommendations. The first on, well, let's just say that I am glad you referred to the second part as it was humorous. The first part almost immediately talked about the "illegitimate presidency of Beorge W. Bush." Right then I realized this guy can't get over something that is now almost 3 years in the past. I also noted he played a little loose with some facts.

The chronicle site was quite interesting and right to the point about free speech. I thoroughly enjoyed that article.

In regards to the debate about Mr. Clinton's actions, yes there was some debate, but not nearly as much dissent over the same issues he had quoted. Add to that the debates were not vicously anti-Clinton as the loud protests against Mr. Bush were. All I ask for in these protesters is a bit of consistency. There is very little.