You know, I really dislike the idea of "Free Speech Zones." They're offensive to free speech, they're offensive to democracy, and they're really offensive in that they are used to enable chronically-lying nincompoops like Mitt Romney to stay in their bubbles and pretend that nobody thinks they're terrible, horrible, no good, very bad people.
But the reality is, like them or not, we have Free Speech Zones. So if we're going to have them, then let's have them. Why should they only be enforced against our side?
Lets ask our representatives to introduce a law that puts Free Speech Zones to the best possible use I can think of: by allowing women's health clinics and funeral processions to request that police move protesting religious zealots into Free Speech Zones.
(More below The World's Most Elegant Cheeto)
If it is constitutional to use Free Speech Zones to prevent political protestors from addressing politicians (what with the whole "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" part of the Bill of Rights) then it is hard to see how it would not be constitutional to apply them to stopping protestors from harassing private citizens who are trying to live their lives. The expectations of publicity for a woman with an ectopic pregnancy (who needs a procedure to remove the doomed fetus from her fallopian tube, and preserve her own life) are much higher than for someone running for office. Likewise, you can't choose to not die (and therefore not need a funeral) but nobody forces anyone to run for office.
If putting protestors in Free Speech Zones is constitutional for politicians, then it must also be constitutional for health clinics and funeral processions. The first-amendment bar that must be cleared is just much higher for the former.
Now, like I said, I would prefer that we didn't have Free Speech Zones at all. But I think this could be a powerful wedge issue for our side:
If the Republicans block the legislation, then the R's get the electoral disaster of actively supporting the Westboro Baptist Church's disgusting practice of protesting at military funerals. America completely despises Fred Phelps and his ilk by very large margins.
If the Republican's don't block the legislation, then it pisses off the American Taliban zealots in their base, and drives a big ol' wedge between the money men and their fundie foot soldiers. As an added bonus, protestors would be blocked from harassing people undergoing some truly difficult, wrenching personal issues. We'd still have Free Speech Zones, but their use would be more equitable.
Best case scenario: Free Speech Zones get outlawed entirely. If it's unconstitutional to enforce them against people protesting the decisions of private citizens, then it must also be unconstitutional to apply them against political protestors, because the claim to first amendment protection is much stronger in the political speech realm.
I can't see a downside to promoting this issue; can you?