FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS LIMITATIONS.

Is the regulation of hateful statements and publications consistent with the guarantee of free speech? This is the deceptively frightening question that those against the regulation of hate speech are posing. We have heard them opine that it is unconstitutional for the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC), to bar them from peddling dangerous falsehoods. However, I beg to differ on the grounds that freedom of speech the world over is only guaranteed to the extent that it does not constitute uttering or publishing of false, scandalous, and malicious writings against a legitimately elected government or a section of its people. In the realization that completely unrestricted freedom of expression leads to infringement on the rights of others, the Kenyan parliament in its wisdom (and in the very presence of those who are belatedly crying foul) found it absolutely necessary to come up with the NCIC whose mandate includes but is not limited to the regulation of hate -filled statements. Then, this piece of legislation was hailed as very sound considering the harrowing experience of the post 2007 presidential election. Today, this piece of legislation is being trashed by the very people who mid-wifed it. How chilling is it that in this fragile existence, some people find it gratifying to incite us into destroying one another? How is it that an elected leader in the pretext of interpreting an item in the draft constitution should be so callous as to deliver a speech dripping with sarcasm and hate of fellow citizens? How come that such hatred is sandwiched in bombs? Are those opposed to the regulation of hate speech telling us that our right to a peaceful co-existence is simply an accumulated wrong? Since when did the right to oppose the current draft constitution become a carte blanche to purvey poisonous hate? It must be known that hate mongers and hate groups do not represent nor speak for any section of the people of Kenya. They do so to protect their own selfish interests. Any reluctance on the part of the government to bring the architects of hate speech book will be akin to the government restricting our desire for a peaceful coexistence to the whims of powerful cabal. With every hate speech uttered, the architects of hate speech seek to make Kenyans cow in fear and retreat from the referendum. I beseech all and sundry not to be deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of darkness who have abandoned every value except the will to power—they follow in the path of fascism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies. To further underscore the limitation to free speech, allow me to employ the analogy of a madman. You see, it is said that it is only a madman who knows the sweetness in his madness. He therefore has all the rights to enjoy the sweetness in his madness to the fullest. However, the state must ensure that in the process of enjoying this sweetness, the madman does not infringe upon the rights of the citizenry. TOME FRANCIS, BUMULA. http://twitter.com/tomefrancis