And really, if you were a terrorist trying to take a potshot at the President, wouldn’t the idea of pretending to be an unquestioning fan of him and his policies be the first thing to pop into your mind?
Which would suggest that if the CIA was really concerned about Presidential security, they’d keep the pro-Bush folks far away, and let the anti-Bush folks (the ones who they already know won’t try to kiss up to the PotUS) get closer… Naah! 
Nothing that Dub-duh (oops, our distinguished President) does surprises me anymore. I honestly believe he doesn’t think before he speaks or acts, much like a hyperactive child. Now, some folks in his administration, such as Ashcroft, are truly evil IMHO and seem like they would belong more in the KGB or such than in the United States government.
No, dissenting speech is not protected in both cases.
Freedom of speech has to take place in the proper forum to be granted. For example, there is no freedom of speech on private property. If the owners of the property or their representatives don’t approve of what you are saying, then you can and will be ejected from that property.
Even on public property, you usually need some kind of permit to legally protest. And if dissenters show up, then usually the permit-holders have the legal right to ask them to leave. After all, its their rally, they organized and paid for it, let the dissenters hold their own.
And finally, the speech has to be orderly. You are legally entitled to whatever opinion you want to have. However, as the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Just because you have an opinion, no matter how important you think it is, does not mean that you can break a law. Free speech does not even trump municiple ordinances when it comes to behavior. Blocking traffic, harrassing pedestrians, and destroying property are not excused because you have a message.
Personal experience in all of these cases is a Police Officer, Security Guard, whatever, will come over and ask or demand that the dissenter stop. The dissenter, who invariably flunked 8th grade Civics, will then exclaim louded that its a free country blah blah blah. Then he’s facing trespassing charges. Which causes him to get more indignant and start yelling, escalating the charges to disorderly conduct. Then the arrest is attempted, and he refuses to go, adding resisting arrest without violence. Then assault, battery, resisting with violence and finally, after pepperspray and being hogtied, he is dumped into the back of a police car, still bitterly professing that he is be oppressed.
Americans sure love their Freedom of Speech, too bad so few actually understand it…
Sorry, I missed that part of the OP. My bad.
Doesn’t apply here. Bursey was on public property, the Columbia Metropolitan Airport.
Not according to the South Carolina Supreme Court. In 1969, the court ruled that anti-war demonstrators could not be charged with trespassing if they were on public property. Ironically, the defendant then was Bursey, and the location was also Columbia Metropolitan Airport. Some presidents never learn.
But peacefully carrying a sign meets none of those definitions of disorderly.
Thereby violating the dissenter’s rights, as guaranteed by the SC Supreme Court
**Nope. No trespassing. Public Property.
Only in your fevered imagination.
You are living proof.
That was my first thought – that the Secret Service isn’t normally that stupid and when they are prosecutors normally quietly let the charges drop (or “lose” documents or “miss” deadlines and “oops, guess we can’t prosecute him!”). Heck, even when there’s a good case most times prosecutors don’t go forward or at least bargain down to a B.S. charge because it’s not worth it unless the guy’s actually a threat.
Perhaps one reason is this (taken from the linked story).
Now let’s suppose that I was planning to protest Bush on his next trip to New York. (I want a bigger tax cut! Why is Syria still uninvaded? Stop China’s peg to the dollar! 
) Do you suppose that NYPD and USSS would be discussing it beforehand? Heck, even if the Iraqis for Saddam organization were protesting Bush, do you suppose local police would know any of them by name?
Seems to me that South Carolina’s law enforcement folks thought of Bursey (rightly or wrongly) as a known persistent asshole. There’s some kind of ass-covering going on here of which we’re unaware.
Now there’s a reason to protest!
Athough… how one stop’s it is a bit of a challenging question. Well, no matter, be like the anti-Globos, feeling first, thought second.
Initially, Bursey was escorted away and charged with trespassing. The trespassing charges were dropped. Only later were the federal charges made.
Since he alone of all of the people w/ signs in the area he was in was charged w/ trespassing and escorted away, and since he alone of all of the people w/ signs in the area was subsequently charged under the limited access law it seems that a probable conclusion would be that he was singled out for the content of his sign.
Mr Bursey is clearly being made an example of. An ugly example at that.
OK, think. If only for just a couple of neuron connnections, really, really think. “None of the other (anti-Bush) protestors with him was arrested.” Does it seem plausible to you that he was the only one carrying an anti-Bush sign? Does it even seem plausible that he was the only one carrying a sign that said “No War for Oil?”
Seriously. He wasn’t arrested or charged because he was holding a “No War for Oil” sign where Bush could see it. He was charged because his prior record and history has the South Carolina folks (again, rightly or wrongly) thinking of him as an asshole and possibly as a threat.
Collounsbury: That’s the beauty of protest signs – they need not make sense!
From the information made available so far…
While there were others with anti-Bush signs, they were not in the same area.
While there were others in the same area w/ signs, they were pro-Bush signs.
Mr Bursey was the only person w/ an anti-Bush sign in the area.
The potential threat Mr Bursey posed was negated once he was removed from the area on trespassing charges. The subsequent federal charges aren’t related to the potential threat posed by Mr. Bursey.
If the local US attorney, Strom Thurmond junior, decided to bring federal charges against Mr Bursey just because SC folks thought Mr. Bursey was an asshole, then that’s just as wrong. As you well know, it’s perfectly legal to be an asshole.
This also does not address the issue of the apparently similar incident that happened in Michigan. The only apparent tie-ins are the pres, a protester, and the invocation of the same law.
Perhaps it has escaped my notice, Manny, but I dont recall any legal precedent legitimizing the abrogation of civil rights for “assholes”. Is this a provision of the Patriot Act? The Rectal Orifice Disenfranchisement Act of 1995?
You seem persuaded that the news report is inaccurate, based upon…well, nothing really, beyond your own suspicions. Perhaps Mr. Rectum was the only anti-Bush partisan in all if South Carolina. Perhaps the challenges of writing deterred them. We have no idea.
But finally it doesn’t matter. 1, 50, a thousand, it makes no difference. They are assured by the Constitution of thier right to public dissent except under truly extraordinary circumstances of threat, none of which can remotely be asserted in this instance.
One has to note that the US Attorney mentioned, Mr. Strom Thurmond, Jr., might be likely to have some exceptional experience as regards recognizing the quality of “asshole”.
The Economist story said that other anti-Bush protestors were “with him.” “With him.” a further web search corroborates the Economist’s statment.
Agreed. However, if they thought he was a threat, it’s still appropriate to bring charges after the fact. Unusual, but not inappropriate. That said, I suspect that the prosecution will be shown to be improper here – just for different reasons than are being proffered.
Oh, good. You have the details on that one. Link, please?
What has escaped your notice is that nowhere have I called this prosecution justified.
Well, gee, Manny, it certainly seemed like you were putting forward some sort of defense, albeit ineptly.
Point of fact, you did state that you thought the prosecutions were improper. If I have misunderstood you, you have my sincere apologies.
I can certainly see how calling the Secret Service “stupid” in this instance and opining that there was “ass-covering” going on could have confused, uh, some people.
As it happens, you may have stumbled on the real reasons for this. Specifically, you said:
You are factually incorrect. When one thinks of “Strom Thurmond, Jr.” one might reasonably think of a 70-year old guy. In fact, he’s 30. He graduated from law school in 1998. That’s not a typo. He got rushed into the U.S. Attorney job in 2001 with wide bipartisan support as a going-away gift (heh) to Strom, Sr. I guess I’m willing to be convinced that he is Superlawyer, more than ready to conquer one of the toughest jobs around at the tender age of thirty and with almost a half-decade of real-life attorneying under his belt, but I’m not ready to believe that he has “experience” with anything at all.
My guess? Strom, Jr. is repaying political favors in South Carolina and Ashcroft is either letting him learn on this one or supporting him or letting him hang (or all three).
It is becoming clearer that the wisdom and probity lavished on Manhattan has not been for naught. Every day he draws closer, ever closer, to the side of Truth and Justice. Such repentance cannot be anything but commendable.
Please be advised that if you actually send a donation to Howard Dean, I shall become eligible for the toaster oven.
Heh. His lawyer quitting and the story about it settles any doubts I might have had. This is a guy looking to get busted so he can have his Day In Court and Fuck The System.
Two points for him – he won this round, making pretty much everyone look like an idiot or an ass or both in the process. When it’s over, I only hope young Strom takes a lesson away.
I appreciate you posting this, manny; I had missed this astonishing bit of nepotism. At the risk of hijacking my own thread, I did a little digging, and found some additional info about wunderkind Strom Jr.:
Strom Thurmond Jr. would be least experienced U.S. attorney
And once again, those responsible see nothing improper or unwise about this appointment. Amazing.