The Oppression of Free Speech

The Stern Miss Law wrote:

. . . your comments on this subject have no value to anyone other than the ignorant.

So then, you're suggesting he find a group of Bush supporters and begin preaching to the choir? I'll go along with that, sounds like a plan . . .

0 Replies

Fact remains, debra, bursey was not charged nor convicted for what he said, but for where he was.

And, of course, his conviction was reversed by the USSC, who said:

"...the jury found that petitioner had committed a felony by knowingly and willfully threatening the President. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed by a two-to-one vote. 131 U.S. App. D.C. 125, 402 F.2d 676 (1968). We reverse."

The rule of law is a wonderful thing to behold is it not?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

But your acting as though it's a common occurrance when it's not. To me, it's an over-reaction.

You are doing nothing more than using it as a lever for your side which is understandable. If I had Kerry as a candidate I would try to find and use whatever I could as well.

As the article demonstrated clearly, this isn't rare and it is an increasingly common tactic. And even if it were less common than it is, it is a fundamental violation of the principle behind the right to free speech, thus ought to be yelled about by everyone.

As to 'lever for your side', that doesn't even begin to stand as an argument, McG. The example I provided from here involved a Liberal government and that government took a big hit from pretty much everyone for what they'd set up.

This is fundamentally important to democracy, and you ought not to be excusing it regardless of party affiliation. That's how such rights get lost.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The Stern Miss Law wrote:
. . . your comments on this subject have no value to anyone other than the ignorant.

So then, you're suggesting he find a group of Bush supporters and begin preaching to the choir? I'll go along with that, sounds like a plan . . .

Not a chance setanta. You and debra being the free speech advocates you are certainly welcome dissenting opinions do you not? I know I do.

0 Replies

It is obvious that everything Miss Law wrote went right over your head . . . the Supremes reversed precisely because Bursey was arrested, not for where was, but for the content of his public speech. Had his simple locus been the cause for his arrest, all of those around him who were supporters of the Shrub would have been arrested as well. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I suggest that your mouth is writing checks your ass can't cash when you attempt to argue the meaning of law with a lawyer.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Larry434 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Larry434 wrote:

This is one of those situations where a little education would be helpful before expressing an opinion based upon ignorance or mistake of law.

Law BASICS: A law may be constitutional on its face; but unconstitutional in its application. "[A] statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind."

Please read the Watts case and its progeny and then evaluate your statements with (hopefully) a better understanding of the oppressive use of laws.

WATTS v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)

"Petitioner's REMARK during political debate at small public gathering..."

This is NOT on point to the charge of ""entering a restricted area around the President of the United States."

Bursey was NOT charged for anything he said, but with where he was...illegally.

Next.

I can see where your two seconds of self-education were unavailing.

Where was the "restricted area?" Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free speech zone."

Again, where was the "restricted area?" Was the restricted area everywhere except the "free speech zone" where dissent was quarantined?

Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the policeman if "it was the contentcontent of your sign that's the problem.'" Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."

Bursey was one person standing amid hundreds of others carrying signs. He was selectively targeted based on the content of his message (sign).

Why was it LEGAL for all the persons who carried pro-Bush signs to stand in the undefined restricted zone--but it was ILLEGAL for Bursey to stand there? Was it the content of his speech? Of course it was.

Accordingly, the law may be constitutional on its face--but unconstitutionally applied to Bursey. Until you can truly understand the application of laws and the concepts of constitutional on its face vs. unconstitutional as applied--your comments on this subject have no value to anyone other than the ignorant.

You do know you are not the supreme law of the land here at A2K? I'm sure we could find a lawyer that would say what happened was ok and justify what was done. I think lawyers are great, they can all look at the same law and see it applied in different ways. I just have to remember that when I see your posts.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It is obvious that everything Miss Law wrote went right over your head . . . the Supremes reversed precisely because Bursey was arrested, not for where was, but for the content of his public speech. Had his simple locus been the cause for his arrest, all of those around him who were supporters of the Shrub would have been arrested as well. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I suggest that your mouth is writing checks your ass can't cash when you attempt to argue the meaning of law with a lawyer.

Surely you are not saying that bursey was charged and convicted in the trial court (upheld on appeal to the District Court) for "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States." are you setanta?

My whole point here is that the case is not on point to any free speech case.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
The Stern Miss Law wrote:
. . . your comments on this subject have no value to anyone other than the ignorant.

So then, you're suggesting he find a group of Bush supporters and begin preaching to the choir? I'll go along with that, sounds like a plan . . .

Not a chance setanta. You and debra being the free speech advocates you are certainly welcome dissenting opinions do you not? I know I do.

larry

Dialogue with someone who feels their ego is more important than their education is particularly tiresome. You could avail yourself of the considerably superior constitutional/legal knowledge that debra demonstrates and come out of this smarter and wiser. Or you could continue as you have been, while not increasing your store of expertise or understanding an iota.

0 Replies

Correcting an error in my last to Setanta:

Surely you are not saying that bursey was NOT charged and convicted in the trial court...

0 Replies

blatham: "You could avail yourself of the considerably superior constitutional/legal knowledge that debra demonstrates and come out of this smarter and wiser."

Then I am sure debra knows she erred in citing a case that is NOT legally on point to any case regarding free speech in that the charge and conviction therein was not about free speech but about "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States."

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

blatham: "You could avail yourself of the considerably superior constitutional/legal knowledge that debra demonstrates and come out of this smarter and wiser."

Then I am sure debra knows she erred in citing a case that is NOT legally on point to any case regarding free speech in that the charge and conviction therein was not about free speech but about "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States."

And your erroneous arguments here have been...?

0 Replies

restricted area

Baldimo wrote:

You do know you are not the supreme law of the land here at A2K? I'm sure we could find a lawyer that would say what happened was ok and justify what was done. I think lawyers are great, they can all look at the same law and see it applied in different ways. I just have to remember that when I see your posts.

Due Process (secured by the Constitution) provides that criminal statutes must give individuals NOTICE of what conduct constitutes a crime in order to comply.

Bursey was NOT told that he was standing in a restricted area. Bursey was not told the boundaries of the "restricted area" established by the Secret Service. Bursey was not informed of the boundaries so he may obey the obscure federal law, but was merely told to GO to the "free speech zone" or go home because the content of his message would not be tolerated. He was initially arrested on state charges for trespassing upon public property--something that was NOT a crime.

If he was going to be charged and convicted of knowingly and willfully staying in a "restricted area" after being told to leave--due process requires that he have actual notice concerning the boundaries of the restricted area so he could conform his conduct to the requirements of law. He was not given notice of the boundaries. There was no law that required him to go home or to remove himself to the "free speech zone." The law allowed him to stand outside the boundaries of the "restricted area" if only he knew where those boundaries were.

Bursey was targeted for prosecution based upon the CONTENT of his message--not based upon the area upon which he stood. I'm sure you can find many people, lawyers included, who don't care--who think that's okay. But, I don't think it's okay. I think the federal prosecution does nothing to vindicate the President's safety--but rather shreds the Constitution.

America -- the land of the free -- does not practice what it preaches.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

Surely you are not saying that bursey was charged and convicted in the trial court (upheld on appeal to the District Court) for "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States." are you setanta?

My whole point here is that the case is not on point to any free speech case.

You just don't get it, to you? It is precisely because he was charged with "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States," while all of those in his immediate vicinity who were in the same area were not so charged, that the Supremes recognized that he was not in fact arrested on the basis of that proximity, but rather on the content of his free expression, and therefore reversed the lower courts on that basis. This is what you seem not to be willing, or perhaps unable, to grasp. Surely he was so charged--but in that he, and only he was so charged while others were in the same proximity to the President, and especially in that the arresting officer acknowledged that it was the content of his sign which resulted in his arrest, the Supremes made a finding of fact that he was being arrested for exercising his free speech, without regard to the excuse of his proximity to the President which was the legal fig leaf the prosecution were attempting to paste on the case.

0 Replies

"If he was going to be charged and convicted of knowingly and willfully staying in a "restricted area" after being told to leave--due process requires that he have actual notice concerning the boundaries of the restricted area so he could conform his conduct to the requirements of law. He was not given notice of the boundaries. There was no law that required him to go home or to remove himself to the "free speech zone." The law allowed him to stand outside the boundaries of the "restricted area" if only he knew where those boundaries were."

With all due respect, debra, are you saying that ignorance of the law is a valid defense?

0 Replies

Reasonable people can disagree with the USSC opininon in the case debra cited.

"MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissents.

[ Footnote * ] 18 U.S.C. 871 (a) provides:

"Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office [394 U.S. 705, 706] of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." [394 U.S. 705, 709]"

Even learned USSC Justices.

0 Replies

Jeeze, you're a piece of work--do you suggest that carrying a sign which reads "No war for oil" constitutes a threat of bodily harm?

The circus contortionists of old having nothin' on you, bubba . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Jeeze, you're a piece of work--do you suggest that carrying a sign which reads "No war for oil" constitutes a threat of bodily harm?

The circus contortionists of old having nothin' on you, bubba . . .

Justice White seemed to think so, didn't he?

0 Replies

Watts and its progeny

Larry434 wrote:

Then I am sure debra knows she erred in citing a case that is NOT legally on point to any case regarding free speech in that the charge and conviction therein was not about free speech but about "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States.”

Larry434: There is nothing erroneous in referring to Watts and its progeny for understanding the proper judicial analysis of laws that are constitutional on their face, but are unconstitutionally applied to oppress rights secured by the First Amendment. In fact, applying existing case law to the fact situation at issue is the very essense of law practice. Although facts may change from one case to another, the legal analysis remains the same.

0 Replies

This has been a really informative & enthralling discussion, Debra!

0 Replies

ignorance of the law must be a valid defense George Bush has been using it for the duration of his term in office, in fact, the entire duration of his life.

0 Replies

The Oppression of Free Speech

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know