Whatever happened to free speech zones?

To keep me from losing my mind at work (the cold, dark place that lacks a human element), Greg's started to give me research projects.

Today we have the following question: Whatever happened to Free Speech Zones? Note: I know this violates everything about Selda's demand for more fun posts, so my next one will be silly. I promise.


So, a few years ago, anyone who had ever voted for a democrat and then tried to get within 300 yards of Bush was confined to a "free speech zone" at public events, held on public property. Everyone should read every word of this article from 2004. It's a heart warming throwback to the days when Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft were still the epitome of evil (who could have predicted Gonzalez?)
Here's an excerpt:

Likewise, in May of last year, the Homeland Security Department waded butt-deep into the murky waters of political suppression, issuing a terrorist advisory to local law enforcement agencies. It urged all police officials to keep a hawk-eyed watch on any homelanders who [Warning: Do not read the rest of this sentence if it will shock you to learn that there are people like this in your country!] have "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the US government."

MEMO TO TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF HSD: Sir, that's everyone. All 280 million of us, minus George Bush, you and the handful of others actually making the decisions. You've just branded every red-blooded American a terrorist. Maybe you should stick to playing with your color codes.

"You've just branded every red-blooded American a terrorist."

Interestingly enough, free speech zones swing both ways. In 2004,

Protesters at the DNC were confined to a fenced-in area -- a wire enclosure topped by razor wire outside Boston's FleetCenter, where the Convention was held. They charged that their First Amendment rights were violated by this confinement.

Apparently, spinoffs of FSZs continue across the country. Atlanta and St. Petersburg both struggled over what to do with homophobs during city-sanctioned gay pride parades. Atlanta decided against creating zones and allowed unrestricted protests by anti-gay groups. Somewhat bizarrely, the St. Petersburg mayor and police chief created a little area for gay folk, a little area for the anti-gays, and then arrested people who violated their respective zones.

On the side of progress, the Minneapolis city council is drafting operating procedures to follow to protect free speech during the 2008 RNC.

On the side of insanity, check this out: excerpts from the manual given to advance teams at Bush's speaking engagements. Look at all the clever ways they have of weeding out protesters and protecting the president. It really is a good read.

So, here's my question to my law school friends: WTF? Why is any of this in any way legal? How are cages out of sight of the event a reasonable restriction of free speech? How can you deny protesters the right to speak to the media?

Also, the ACLU seems to file law suits here and there against various organizations for these free speech zones - they just filed a new one last month. Why can't there be a sweeping decision against the zones? What about the law am I missing?

Love
me