I summarily reject the zero tolerance mentality. I find it wholly repugnant to the notion of liberty, and I will to the end disagree with anything that stems from it.
We've also agreed not to agree that this is a 1st Amendment issue. Shall we do so again?
But the position you're pushing now is that no form of restraint to keep protest from turning violent is justifiable, that everybody in the neighborhood had just better duck and cover the second a protest sign comes out and if they get caught in the cross fire they should just thank God for free speech. That's another version of zero tolerance, basically you have zero tolerance for anything that might inconvenience somebody with a protest sign, that might be a workable position in an idealized world where everybody is sane, but like the Walgreens ad says "we're a long way from perfect".
I'd love it if the cops could go back to making judgement calls, that actually worked pretty well. But your brand of zero tolerance is no less crappy than their brand of zero tolerance, it just make free speech a sacred cow that everything, including the lives of people not participating in any way, is secondary to. That's a dangerous level of extremist thought and a shining example of exactly why the Founding Fathers did not garauntee place time or audience.
No we didn't agree to disagree. You proposed it, I rejected it.