I'd like that too. Only I'd like there to be some objective criteria for being removed from a protest. You know, threatening behavior (expressing dissatisfaction with the government in itself is NOT threatening), violence, that sort of thing.
What they've got now is a one size fits all "protesters are banned except to 'free speech zones' under penalty of arrest" policy that IMO is inconsistent with free speech, and temptingly easy to abuse when some politician gets his poor little feelings hurt by a protest sign when he ventures into public.
No we didn't agree to disagree.
Read what I wrote a little closer.
No what we have is a one size fits all "opposing sides shall not have line of sight" system. Whichever side fills out the most paperwork first gets to pick location and time, the other side is SOL, welcome to life in an entreched bereaucracy. Waiting until threatening behavior happens isn't the right answer, at that point usually the crowd out nubmers the cops and there isn't anything they can do to keep things under control. They've got to use profiling, some sides are more likely to use violence and they're the ones that need to be cordoned off.
But cordoning off people is not inconsistent with free speech, regardless of the selection criterion. If they still get to say their bit they're still getting free speech. Some people HAVE to be cordoned off because they're nut but on a general principle there's nothing wrong with it.