Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) announced that eleven Members of the House of Representatives, including many leaders on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, sent a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft today, urging him to drop the Federal criminal prosecution of a South Carolina man who attended a Bush speech at an airport and refused to give up his sign reading, “No more war for oil.” In addition to Mr. Frank, signers on the letter include Ron Paul (R-TX), John Conyers (D-MI), James R. Langevin (D-RI), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Howard L. Berman (D-CA), William D. Delahunt (D-MA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Melvin L. Watt (D-NC).

According to reports from protestor Brett Bursey and the press, police officers arrested Mr. Bursey for standing with thousands of Republicans welcoming the President at a Columbia, South Carolina airport because Mr. Bursey refused to change or put down his sign. Mr. Bursey reports he was told that if he wanted to protest the President, he would have to go to the designated protest site half a mile away near a highway and outside the sight and hearing of the President. “It’s the content of your sign,” officials said. (editors note: Even before the Patriot Act was in effect dissenters were being arrested. This is a video of what happened in Tampa, Florida at Legends Field June 4, 2001 and is another example of the Bush Admininistrations threats to freedom of expression. For text version of what happened.)

Mr. Bursey was arrested and charged by the South Carolina police with trespassing. When that charge was soon dropped by South Carolina authorities, Mr. Bursey was then indicted by United States Attorney J. Strom Thurmond, Jr. for violation of a federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the President. If Mr. Bursey is convicted in the non-jury trial that Mr. Thurmond is seeking, Mr. Bursey faces up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine.

In the letter to Ashcroft released today, the Members of Congress called the prosecution of Mr. Bursey for carrying his sign outside the designated free speech zone “a threat to the freedom of expression we should all be defending”:

“As we read the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States is a ‘free speech zone’. In the United States, free speech is the rule, not the exception, and citizens’ rights to express it do not depend on their doing it in a way the President finds politically amenable . . . . We ask that you make it clear that we have no interest as a government in “zoning” Constitutional freedoms, and that being politically annoying to the President of the United States is not a criminal offense. This prosecution smacks of the use of the Sedition Acts two hundred years ago to protect the President from political discomfort. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. We urge you to drop this prosecution based so clearly on the political views being expressed by the individual who is being prosecuted.”

A copy of the letter is attached.

#####

May 27, 2003

The Honorable John Ashcroft
Attorney General
Department Of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General,

Respecting as we do the roles assigned to the Legislative and Executive Branches by the Constitution, we do not usually comment on pending individual prosecutions. But where important national policy issues are directly implicated in decisions to prosecute, we believe it is our responsibility to express our views. And we feel very strongly that the decision by your department to charge Brett Bursey under Section 1752 (a)(1)(ii) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code is greatly mistaken, and is in fact a threat to the freedom of expression we should all be defending.

Of course it is a primary duty of the Secret Service to protect the President, but there is no plausible argument that can be made that Mr. Bursey was threatening the President by holding a sign which the President found politically offensive. Mr. Bursey reports that he was told that he had to either put down his sign or leave the area – in other words, it was not his presence in the area but his presence holding a sign that was expressing a political viewpoint critical of the President that caused his arrest. The fact that Mr. Bursey was told to go to the “free speech zone” demonstrates how mistaken the Justice Department’s position is in this regard.

As we read the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States is a “free speech zone”. In the United States, free speech is the rule, not the exception, and citizens’ rights to express it do not depend on their doing it in a way that the President finds politically amenable. It is extremely relevant that the State dropped the trespassing charges, and that the U.S. Attorney, Mr. Thurmond, then brought this serious charge. Perhaps the problem was trying to convict Mr. Bursey of trespassing when he was standing on public property and doing nothing unlawful. But the State’s decision to drop the charge should have been a model for the federal government, rather than an occasion for the federal government instituting a serious criminal prosecution of an individual whose “crime” was engaging in free speech outside of what law enforcement officials decided was the appropriate “zone”. We ask that you make it clear that we have no interest as a government in “zoning” Constitutional freedoms, and that being politically annoying to the President of the United States is not a criminal offense. This prosecution smacks of the use of the Sedition Acts two hundred years ago to protect the President from political discomfort. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. We urge you to drop this prosecution based so clearly on the political views being expressed by the individual who is being prosecuted.

Barney Frank, Ron Paul, John Conyers, James R. Langevin, Loretta Sanchez, Zoe Lofgren, Edward J. Markey, Howard L. Berman, Jerrold Nadler, Melvin L. Watt, William D. Delahunt


www.voiceoffreedom.com