Someone else (Political Dumpground) has already written something so similar to my own feelings on this, that I won't bother writing my own piece.
The main area of difference is that I think the first bill, banning fashion crimes in the town formerly known as Wanganui, and the new bill, banning fashion crimes in buildings the govt owns or rents on your behalf, probably DO in fact have the potential to permit the govt of the day to commit "serious breaches of freedom of expression". This is mainly due to the inevitable discrepancy between "organizations who have no other purpose than conspiracy to commit crime" and all groups that may fall under the scope of the law.
