Editor’s note: On July 26, a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Douglas Woodlock’s ruling on the demonstration zone. The panel issued a written opinion on July 30 explaining the basis for its order.

BOSTON — A federal judge ordered the city yesterday to allow protesters to march directly past the site of the Democratic National Convention, but refused to change a nearby protest zone, despite calling the fenced-in area “an affront to free expression.”

Judge Douglas P. Woodlock ruled on two separate lawsuits filed by protest groups this week. The first was from several groups challenging the city’s denial of their request to march past the FleetCenter on July 25, the day before the convention starts.

The second lawsuit was filed on July 21 over a designated demonstration zone, a 28,000 square-foot area that protest groups said was too far from the convention and violated their free-speech rights.

Woodlock ruled first on the march, saying the coalition of protesters made a “very powerful argument” that there is a symbolic importance to marching directly past the convention site.

But he entirely rejected the lawsuit brought by the Bl(A)ck Tea Society and other groups, saying it was “irretrievably sad” that precautions such as those at the demonstration zone were necessary, citing how protests have become increasing violent and terrorism has grown into a new threat since Sept. 11, 2001.

Woodlock also referred to U.S. Secret Service intelligence about possible protest tactics that Assistant U.S. Attorney George Henderson told him about privately during the hearing. Woodlock refused to reveal that information.

Woodlock described the site — which features overhead netting, chain-link fence and razor wire — as a “festering boil,” but refused to make any of the changes protesters sought.

“I at first thought, before taking a view (of the protest zone), that the characterization of the space being like a concentration camp was litigation hyperbole,” he said. “Now I believe it’s an understatement.”

“One cannot conceive of other elements put in place to create a space that is more of an affront to the idea of free expression than the designated demonstration zone.”

Dustin Langley, a spokesman for the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition, one of the groups that sued over the July 25 march permit, claimed victory on the march ruling.

“We were confident all along that we were going to march on Causeway Street,” he said. “We’re obviously pleased.”

Jonathan Shapiro, an attorney for the National Lawyers Guild, called the decision on the protest zone “outrageous.”

“In the same breath, the judge calls this a ‘festering boil’ that is an ‘affront’ to First Amendment values and then at the same time said it’s OK ... based upon what’s happened in other times and other places,” he said.

He said attorneys would not appeal.

Ironically, the site was actually given a new restriction because of the lawsuit. After Woodlock asked city legal adviser Mary Jo Harris about capacity of the site and whether its two exits were enough, she said in court yesterday that another exit was being added, and that only 1,000 protesters would be allowed inside. The city had previously said 4,000 could enter the area.

Elly Guillette, 27, one of the plaintiffs, said that she and other protesters intended to boycott the free-speech area altogether.

“We have no intention of going in it, and we hope people will stand in solidarity with us. It’s dangerous and it’s ridiculous,” she said.

The rulings came after two days of hearings, and Woodlock’s July 21 tour of the site, during which he walked through the so-called “soft zone” around the FleetCenter as well as the smaller demonstration zone.

The National Lawyers Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts had sued the city on behalf of the Bl(A)ck Tea Society, a self-described coalition of anti-authoritarian activists, and the other protest groups that claimed that the cramped quarters of the demonstration area fell short of what they’d been promised.

They also said its location, more than a block away from the FleetCenter, would make it impossible to get the attention of delegates.

Woodlock also looked at Causeway Street, where the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition and other groups had applied to the city for a permit to march outside the downtown arena the day before Democrats begin their four-day gathering there.

Citing safety concerns, the city altered the route so it would end at the demonstration zone, bypassing Causeway Street, which abuts the FleetCenter.

Harris, the city’s legal adviser, said she was pleased with Woodlock’s decision, and would abide by his order that the march could go past the FleetCenter on July 25.

“Of all the relief [the protesters] sought, this is clearly the most tolerable for us,” she said.