We can curb hate speech without infringing on free expression

Our rhetoric at work, in public meetings and on social media is often laden with derogatory remarks about our ethnic backgrounds or political alignment.

The vibrant comedy industry too, is littered with tribal stereotypes. Some TV stations also display chauvinistic ethnic content that leave some with a sour taste in the mouth. So how does one draw the boundary between entertainment and hate speech?

In her article “Hate speech is a big danger to society and the law should deal with it firmly” (Nation, January 23), Regina Njogu cites the Holocaust, Rwanda genocide, ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kenya’s post-election violence and the recent killing of Charlie Hebdo magazine staffers as manifestations of hatred.

HATE MONGERS

Mohamed Wato in his article, “It’s time to cut out the cancer of hate speech” (Nation, January 26) is of the view that “Kenya needs an effective legal instrument to deal with hate mongers” since “the NCIC comes across as a toothless bulldog that rarely takes suspects to court, claiming lack of evidence.

But Duncan Ojwang (Sunday Nation, February 1) disagrees in a letter to the editor. “The biggest danger of censorship is it’s chilling effect on the marketplace of ideas,” he says. Quite.

But courts must adopt a broad test for hate speech, and to be categorised as such, speech must pose clear and present danger.    

DEREK LIECH ONYANGO, Kisauni, Mombasa