And being people that don't understand the First Ammendment they think some unalienable right was violated when it wasn't. Hence all the opposition to you and the original author in this thread. Again, there's no garauntee of:
time, place, audience
If you want to be upset because it's wrong great, more power to you. But if you're going to say someone's rights or the Constitution were violated you are 100% wrong. It's really just that simple. I'll agree that it shouldn't have happened but I will point out over and over that it is NOT a violation of the First Ammendment in ANY WAY that has EVER been accepted as a valid legal interpretation.
It is not the government's "time place and manner" that is the issue here. They have already decided that people will get to stand on the side of the road while the motorcade goes by.
The sticking point is that the government is making a decision about what political speech it likes or dislikes. Then it is acting on that decision with the full force of law. It is granting those whose speech it likes access to a certain "time place and manner" and denying the same exact thing to those it disagrees with.
The original "time place and manner" decision was made so that order could be kept. For instance you couldn't shut down traffic. But traffic is already shut down. What is happening is government is exploiting a rule passed for one reason to expand its power to do something it is explicitly phohibited in no uncertain terms from doing: interfering with the people's right to protest their government in a peaceful manner. While this mission creep is low and despicible, it is hardly surprising and very obvious to all but the most obtuse person.