If you’re not concerned with this sort of thing …

freedom of speech and of religion combined, than maybe you would agree with the ruling by Australia’s high court saying “a controversial church” may not engage in “public preaching without a permit,” and that the “ruling does not constitute as infringement of freedom of speech.”

http://au.christiantoday.com/article/controversial-church-in-adelaide-banned-from-public-preaching-without-permit/15025.htm

(Adelaide Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood hauled out his copy of politician what? Speak with: "We need to take a good look at the High Court outcome and actually speak to the administration and make sure that we've got our head around this and that we're going to do the right thing going forward." Then, to explain that he had no idea what he had just said, Yarwood offered, "We certainly would like to work with the preachers to minimize the impacts on all city users, but also not curtail freedom of speech."

(Or, The middle of the highway is quite fine, thank you, and I do not intend to stray to one side or another, lest the public mistake movement for decision and/or opinion.)

Link from www.gatesofvienna.net