The Courts Agree-- First Amendment Soft and Skin-Friendly, like Charmin

Johno Johno

Here's a sickening followup on my post of yesterday about the enforcement of a no-free-speech-zones by the Secret Service.

A federal court has found a man guilty of speaking his mind in the presence of the President.

From the story: "U.S. Magistrate Bristow Marchant acknowledged Bursey was not a threat to Bush during the president’s Oct. 24, 2002, visit to Columbia. But the judge dismissed Bursey’s free speech defense and ruled the protester had no right to be as close to Bush as Bursey wanted in his efforts to show that some South Carolinians opposed his plan to attack Iraq."

Also from the story: "Bursey and other protesters testified he was not contentious. They said they were ordered to a "free speech zone" that did not exist and that police kept sending them farther from Bush. Secret Service agents testified there was no marked protection zone but said police patrolled the area and enforced a clear restricted area. Local police chose the demonstration area."

What? I don't get it. Apparently the celebrated "Chewbacca Defense" has been succeeded by the "Calvinball Defense."

-"So where do we protesters stand-- over here?"
-"You'll have to move."
-"Um, ok. Where to?"
-"Where we tell you to."
-"Great. Now where's that. Here?"
-"No, over there. Back up."
-"Here?"
-"No... keep going!"
-"But you said..."
-"Keep going!"
-"Here?"
-"Keep backing up..."
-"Here?"
-"That's it, asshole! You're under arrest! Swarm! Swarm! Swarm!"

Posted by Johno Johno on   |   § 6

§ 6 Comments

1

I'd love to agree with you, but...as the following quote points out...Bursey was not singled out for special treatment...the judge found that everyone was removed from the area. If Bursey had retreated to the same place as everyone else, he'd have a case.

"Marchant also rejected claims that Bursey had been singled out for special prosecution. Bursey, who held a sign that said "No War for Oil," says other people with signs favoring Bush were allowed to stay in the area.

Bursey presented no evidence showing that any other person not attending the rally was allowed to remain in the restricted area or that other protesters received favorable treatment, Marchant wrote."

Ross Ross

2

What evidence could Bursey give to prove his case? It's his word against someone else's.

That being said, I'm unduly proud of the headline. There's such a fine line between stupid and clever.

Johno Johno

3

If secret service guys got up and testified that there wasn't anybody else there, I'm going to have to come down on their side. That being said, we are very much relying on the ethics of the secret service. It's one thing to set up a "free speech zone"; it's another thing entirely to _lie_ about what's going on.

The zone can be defended, sort of, even though it's wrong.

The judge is the guy in the right position to determine if there was any credibility to Bursey's claim.

Sigh. I hate defending this.

Ross Ross

4

While I don't defend or condone this -- and I can recall this same kind of thing happening for Reagan when he was stumping for Bush Sr. in 1988, it was BS then and it's BS now -- I do think it's ironic that these "free-speech zones" are a largely left-wing practice, prominent on college campuses, that have again come back to bite them in the ass as so many of them do.

Phil Phil

5

<Incomplete thought>
Not to mention the limits placed on protestors around abortion clinics, come to think of it. Maybe both left and right should let the First Amendment mean what it bloody well says.
</Incomplete thought>

Phil Phil

6

Phil,
I don't agree with you that the same liberals who institute free speech zones on college campuses are necessarily the same ones who are getting bit in the ass by the same practice at rallies, but that aside, the irony is delicious.

Ross, I've thought about it some more, read a couple things (thank you, Lexis/Nexis!), and concluded that you're right. I went off half-cocked.

Johno Johno

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]