I would argue that they are desperately unconstitutional. The right to say what you want in private is nowhere near as important as it is to say it in public.
Much as the Supreme Court has determined that you (and police) have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space, there should be every reasonable expectation of Constitutional guarantees in ALL public space. Extremely scoped exceptions are arguable (as the much quoted "yelling "fire"" in a movie theater).
The point of free-speech zones is to remove the annoyance of having to hear freely expressed opinions that counter your own, and is usually granted to those in power (specifically politicians). This is the opposite of right. In a public space, you should have no expectation of freedom FROM speech.
Much as the Supreme Court has determined that you (and police) have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space, there should be every reasonable expectation of Constitutional guarantees in ALL public space. Extremely scoped exceptions are arguable (as the much quoted "yelling "fire"" in a movie theater).
The point of free-speech zones is to remove the annoyance of having to hear freely expressed opinions that counter your own, and is usually granted to those in power (specifically politicians). This is the opposite of right. In a public space, you should have no expectation of freedom FROM speech.