More Free-Speech “Pens”

This time organizers of the Democratic National Convention are to blame:

Under a preliminary plan floated by convention organizers, the “free-speech zone” would be a small plot bounded by Green Line tracks and North Washington Street, in an area that until recently was given over to the elevated artery. The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July.
“The area looks a little silly, to be honest with you,” said Urszula Masny-Latos, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild’s Massachusetts chapter. “People will not be able to express their concerns with whatever will be happening, because no one will have access to delegates. No one will be heard, and the area is just too small.”
Officials with the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Massachusetts plan to meet with Boston Police Department representatives in the weeks to come to ask that the plan be changed. Boston police say no final decisions will be made for months, and stressed that they’re open to input.

I don’t know why these organizers are trying to adopt Bushesque-type tactics, but there’s still an opportunity for more reasonable voices to prevail.
An interesting tidbit from the legal battle which preceded the 2000 Democratic convention:

Relegated to a parking lot blocks from the convention arena, protesters sued, and less than a month before that convention began, a federal judge ruled that the designated area was unconstitutional. Organizers were forced to move the area to a parking lot directly across the street from an arena entrance, in keeping with earlier federal court rulings that any legal demonstration be allowed within “sight and sound” of its intended audience.

I haven’t checked out these decisions, but this “sight and sound” element could be used to challenge several of the “free speech zones” which I’ve read about.