According to the San Francisco Chronicle, anti-Bush protesters are being relegated to "free speech zones" when ever the President comes to town.

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

This is outrageous. I am interested to hear what their justification is. They'll probably claim it is necessary for "safety."

In Bush's defense though, I wonder just how common this practice is. Were Clinton detractors subjected to the same rigmarole, or was their vindictive IRS anal probe punishment enough? What about Bush 41? Just how far back does this practice go?

I will also point out that if the administration was banning protesting outside abortion clinics or something on their agenda, the Chronicle would probably sing a different tune.