This is a very, very disturbing precedent. Terry Jones wants to protest--without burning a Koran--in Dearborn, Michigan, on a median strip that happens to be near a mosque. He and his fellow protesters plan to hold signs and give speeches. Dearborn officials denied them a permit to do so and are demanding that they pay a bond (originally a large one, later downgraded to a symbolic one) or face a trial for refusal to do so, because they think the protest might "breach the peace." By this, however, they mean that they are afraid of a riot against the protest. Dearborn officials are telling Jones that he must demonstrate only within "free speech zones" in the city that are not near a mosque.
This is hugely problematic. Though I don't have time to research it right now, I have a strong impression that there is already a Supreme Court precedent on the books to the effect that local official may not demand that people marching or otherwise engaging in normally First Amendment-protected speech pay for extra police protection, because this in effect chills their exercise of their First Amendment rights. (If some reader wants to find that precedent and link it, I'll appreciate it.)
And the attempt to establish "free speech zones" in an American city and to forbid Muslim-offending speech outside of those zones more or less defines "chutzpah."
Jones was arrested late this afternoon for refusing to post a symbolic "peace bond" in anticipation of his protest while continuing to intend to hold the protest. They let him back out again fairly rapidly, which is more than they did for the Dearborn Four. Whether he was able to carry out his anti-Muslim protest I don't yet know. Is this still America?