I've been waiting for this lawsuit. I cannot conceive of a Constitutional theory that lets pro-Bush demonstrators near the President and restricts anti-Bush demonstrators to far, far away. That's called “viewpoint discrimination” and it's almost always illegal when the government does it (but almost always legal when private citizens do it).
OK. I can conceive of arguments the government might make, including something about relative chances of riots or whatever. I just can't conceive of those arguments standing up in court. What's that? The anti-Bush demonstrators are more likely to be violent or dangerous? You never saw a terrorist pretend to support something?
And calling the waaaay off-site zones to which protestors are relegated a “free speech zone” or a “protest zone” just adds insult to injury.