If, as Witold Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union speculates in your article, the law has gone unchallenged up until now because Point State Park is the only urban park in the system and that "small-group demonstrations are uncommon in rural parks," then why have we taken such an extreme step as restricting a provision of the Constitution for such a rare occurrence? Is the implication here that urban parks require the curtailment of liberties because of the higher likelihood that city dwellers might express their views? And even if you buy that noxious proposition, why include all the rural parks? Talk about a slippery slope.
Indeed, urban or rural, rare occurrence or not, the ultimate question is, why are we restricting a provision of the Constitution?
The ACLU needs to challenge this law on general principles. With our role in American history, Pennsylvania doesn't need to be stinking up its books with this kind of tyranny.