High court turns away anti-war protester's appeal

[Judi Lynn]

High court turns away anti-war protester's appeal

By The Associated Press
01.17.06
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today rejected an appeal from an anti-war protester who was convicted of violating the boundaries of a "restricted area" established during President Bush's visit to South Carolina in 2002.

Brett Bursey had urged the justices to hear the appeal of a $500 fine he was assessed for entering a restricted area at near airport hangar in West Columbia on Oct. 24, 2002. In July 2005, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Bursey's conviction in U.S. v. Bursey.

Bursey's lawyers said in court papers that he was exercising his free-speech rights when he carried a megaphone and a placard reading "No more war for oil, don't invade Iraq" into the restricted area.
(snip)

A Secret Service agent told Bursey he could protest in a designated demonstration area a half-mile away. When he refused to leave the restricted area, he was arrested.
(snip/...)

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16319

[meegbear]

1. A designated demonstration area a half-mile away?

And the supremes don't even flinch.
America Uber Alles.

[rodeodance]

2. keeps bush in the bubble

[Benhurst]

3. In BushAmerica, freedom's just another word for

something you're not going to get.

[mom cat]

4. Keep up the pressure to defeat Alito!

[GalleryGod]

5. These Guys Beg to Differ !

[HuffleClaw]

6. 'free speech zones' are an abomination

i think if they had heard the case, they'd have had to declare them unconstitutional.

[GodlessBiker]

7. At a time, at a place, and in a manner *we* will decide for you.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Ooh! Burning Man pic!

Where'd you find that? :)

[rucky]

9. They didn't give a reason it was dismissed?

these "free speech zones" seem to be pushing our right to assembly. I'd like to see a SCOTUS decision on them soon.

[happyslug]

10. If you read the 4th Circuit opinion, you can see why the USSC denied Cert.

This is STRICTLY an interpretation of the Statute, no constitutional issue was addressed by the Fourth Circuit (The First Amendment might have been raised, but it was NOT addressed, the 4th Circuit ruled that the STATUTE was clear and that under the Statute if the area is corridored off by Secret Service Agents, that is sufficient under the statute to be a violation of the Statute.

Thus do to how this case was handled by the Federal Magistrate, The District Court and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, i.e. strictly as a case of Statutory interpretation NOT Constitutional Law.