Target hate speech but leave freedoms intact

The State is stepping on dangerous grounds when it ventures into policing the Internet/blogosphere, a major bastion of free speech.

This statement would come as a surprise to many given the fact that this newspaper and its staff are often the subjects of scurrilous and wild allegations on certain blogs with amazing regularity.

But history has shown that whenever the State becomes overzealous in prosecuting cases touching on suspected abuse of free speech, the ultimate effect is to set precedents that are then used to limit freedom of expression in virtually every sphere of public life.

Perhaps because the events of 2008 are still fresh in our minds, Kenyans have become prickly about anything that closely resembles hate speech or incitement.

The inherent danger in this is that people with plenty to hide will inevitably brand any uncouth criticism with the banner of hate speech, and seek to use the State to fight their wars.

Chapter Four of the Constitution, also known as The Bill of Rights, which enshrines free expression and free speech as fundamental human rights, expects courts and prosecuting authorities to interpret cases in a manner that encourages “an open and democratic society”.

If indeed every person has a right to freedom of association, conscience, thought and opinion, and where freedom of expression includes the freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas, where do you draw the line?

If a blogger regularly publishes lies, half-truths and insults as facts, do these qualify to be inciting or do they fall within the realms of libel?

Ideally, one would expect the aggrieved party to seek redress in court without using the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to fight his or her battles.

Freedom of expression is not absolute, drawing the line on what the State should prosecute is a tricky matter.