Arresting the journalist was too much, though he did say he explicitly disobeyed a police order. He was not, however, arrested because he was critical of Walker, which is what a true analogy to the Alien and Sedition Acts would entail.
Arresting the protesters was for violating a time/place/manner restriction, which they explicitly refused to comply with. Whether the specific restriction would pass Constitutional muster remains to be seen, but it wasn't based on content, which again is what you need to if you want to compare it to the Alien and Sedition Acts.
This is all based on long-standing First Amendment jurisprudence. Agree with it or not, that is the legal structure.
Both are murky, and it's certainly a troubling situation, but neither rises anywhere near to the level of "1798." Gross hyperbole doesn't help anything.
Now . . . that said, I applaud any challenge of governmental encroachment into civil liberties and Bill of Rights territories. I go quite a bit further than most on the absoluteness of rights, especially those in the Bill of Rights. I think these restrictions were too broad, and the enforcement of them, in the case of the editor, too heavy-handed. And I think the current jurisprudence on many Bill of Rights issues are far too tolerant of restriction.
I am, however, continually told that rights are NOT absolute, and restrictions necessarily apply, and am frequently amused at the reaction to restrictions if they're done by the "wrong" people, and especially TO the "right" people.
For example, I suspect that the exact same situation applied to a Westboro Baptist Church protest would probably garner a bit less outrage.
