No protest; no guns: Tampa, Florida asks, 'How much of the Bill of Rights can we

[Timjoebillybob]

No, I'm referring to our National Parks that now have a fenced off area in the back of wherever visitors arrive and congregate. It's the so-called "free speech zone" where you're "allowed" to hold your protest. It's usually very small and very out-of-the-way so that you don't disturb park visitors. More and more places are starting to have those, especially politically-sensitive conventions and such where people are likely to show up to protest. Because you can't have protesters having their message heard by the attendees. That would be a security risk.

That was my other guess.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

No, I'm referring to our National Parks that now have a fenced off area in the back of wherever visitors arrive and congregate. It's the so-called "free speech zone" where you're "allowed" to hold your protest. It's usually very small and very out-of-the-way so that you don't disturb park visitors. More and more places are starting to have those, especially politically-sensitive conventions and such where people are likely to show up to protest. Because you can't have protesters having their message heard by the attendees. That would be a security risk.

Considering the number of protesters lately who are not willing to stop at having their voices heard, there is a legitimate public safety concern at such events. Of course, the bureaucratic (read "politically correct") solution to such problems is to restrict everyone rather than to arrest the folks who cross the line of "free speech" to assault. It's much easier to ban/restrict everyone than to have to plan/pay for extra security to respond to the threats of those who aren't satisfied with exercising their rights of free speech in opposing their foes.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Considering the number of protesters lately who are not willing to stop at having their voices heard, there is a legitimate public safety concern at such events. Of course, the bureaucratic (read "politically correct") solution to such problems is to restrict everyone rather than to arrest the folks who cross the line of "free speech" to assault. It's much easier to ban/restrict everyone than to have to plan/pay for extra security to respond to the threats of those who aren't satisfied with exercising their rights of free speech in opposing their foes.

Free speech zones are not a recent thing. They have been in use since the '70s but only at universities and such that I know of. The first I know of in "public" was the 1988 DNC.
Free speech zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kutnupe14]

This^^^^ The citizens used to be able to peaceably assemble for a redress of grieveances, therefore, the elite need to hear what is said. But I am really torn on situations such as the Westboro Baptist Church, in fact, I don't even know how to word it.

That was a very, very, very long time ago... late 19th Century If I had to guess, probably earlier.