Bursey found guilty, fined $500 (Wouldn't stay in * 1st Amendment Zone)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/7645909.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

A judge fined longtime Columbia political dissenter Brett Bursey $500 Tuesday, ruling that Bursey broke a federal law designed to shield the president from harm.

Bursey, 55, said he would appeal and called on President Bush’s opponents to continue criticizing his policies.

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.

"The defendant effectively sealed his own fate when he chose to make his principled stand in a location manifestly reasonable for the Secret Service to make secure," Marchant wrote in a 13-page ruling. Federal prosecutor John Barton said Bursey failed to prove his First Amendment rights were violated.

[proud patriot]

1. Well that sucks

bigtime .

[DoNotRefill]

2. The ACLU needs to get in on the appeal of this.

It's one thing to say "no signs allowed in this area", but to say "no anti-Bush signs allowed in this area" seems to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. They can put time, place, and manner restrictions on it, but to allow one side to have signs and the other not to is a content restriction, unless one side or the other has a permit and the other doesn't.

[Supply Side Jesus]

3. G.M.A.F.B.

Because you know, when you want to ace the president to obviously want to draw attention to yourself by protesting him.

[kayell]

4. Bump for the morning people

[Robb]

5. Watch for this phrase:

"manifestly reasonable for the Secret Service to make secure".

It's crawling up the charts, looking to bump out "out of an abundance of caution" for the No. 1 Top Spot.

I give it a 6, you can dance to it. ;)

[kayell]

6. They asked him to move to a "free speech zone" 1/2 mile away

There was testimony that * supporters were allowed to remain in visible range of *. Bursey argued that this showed selective prosecution. The judge disagreed, apparently believing that the issue was disobeying the SS orders, rather than that only certain groups of people were asked to move.

Does anyone know where the next stop in the appeals process is for this case? If the bushites keep winning on this issue, we might as well just burn the tattered remains of the first amendment.

[Buns_of_Fire]

7. Situation for SS recruits to consider:

"There was testimony that * supporters were allowed to remain in visible range of *..."

Citizen "A" shows up at the public Boosh-Butt-Bussing carrying a "Dubya Sucks Dead Donkey Dicks" sign.

Citizen "B" shows up at the same event wearing a sandwich board with "I LOVE Our President" on the front, "W ROCKS!" on the back, and wearing an Uncle Sam hat.

Which one are you going to banish to the hinterlands while you allow the other to get within harm's way of the Chickenhawk-in-Chief? Consider your answer carefully.

[WillParkinson]

8. Well, DUH!

Citizen B is OBVIOUSLY insane.

[KansDem]

12. Right!!!

Which means he can stand next to the pResdent and not look "out of place!"

[WillParkinson]

14. Not true!

He can stand next to Bush and STILL look good.

[oneighty]

9. Hmmmmmmm

Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing?

Things are not what they seem to be?

180

[Buns_of_Fire]

10. That would be my thinking. If I were determined to do someone harm,

I sure wouldn't be in-their-face as an enemy. (Reference: "The Godfather")

Will's correct, too, of course. "B" should not be trusted around children or small woodland creatures.

It would probably be easier to just maintain a five-mile exclusion zone around Commander Codpiece so he doesn't get his Depends in a wad.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

11. keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?

[Buns_of_Fire]

13. Sort of. Keep an eye on BOTH of them, but

don't discount the friendly face that might be smiling just a little too smugly. (I know, I probably read too many novels... :shrug: )
In this case, though, I'm not sure that the paranoia is justified because of the protection aspect or just a desire to keep the dauphin isolated from any divergent opinions. Right now, probably both.

[kayell]

15. I suspect they are afraid of having

shrubbies reaction to people disagreeing with him preserved on film for all to see.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

17. No, just ask Rabin or Sadat or Lennon

or any number of people that have been hit by their "guards" or fans.

[CheshireCat]

16. I was in the courtroom when the decision came down.

Most SC progressives were expecting a "guilty" verdict, but we didn't expect the judge to say that the case was not about "Free Speech Zones".

What Bull!

I don't know where the next appeal will take place, but Bursey told me after the verdict was read that he WILL appeal.

Brett Bursey has good legal help and they are working pro bona. So far money hasn't been a major issue, but with the appeal coming up, they could use some help.

To donate, go to SC PROGRESSIVE NETWORK web page. Bursey is the founder and leader of the PROGRESSIVE NETWORK. Activism is his life's work.

http://www.scpronet.com/

[Rex]

18. Sealed his own fate...principled stand...

remember those words