A different angle. Yet another reason it is an infringement on free speech is that there is no way to protest the zone itself. If during the DNC, I had wanted to protest the concept of free speech zones, not the DNC, I would not have been allowed to unless I was inside the box itself. So, the only legally allowed place for me to protest the cage is from inside the cage?
As this article points out, no one was telling the police officers' union that they would have to be in the protest zone if they wanted to picket about their lack of a contract. So, these kinds of restrictions aren't content-neutral either, which should mean they are not constitutional.
And the intimidation? Cameras all around the zone, armed National Guardsmen in elevated positions surrounding the cage, razor wire.. What could possibly justify this?
This seems cut and dried to me. I don't understand how this concept has managed to survive our legal process.