86 S.C. 128\02 Nevertheless, I will now consider whether the restriction on freedom of expression imposed by ss 12(2) and 12(3) is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. Are the legislative objectives sufficiently important to justify a restriction on the freedom of expression? In my view, the legislative objectives in respect of s 12(2) are not, but those in respect of s 12(3) may be. Are the measures designed to meet the legislative objectives rationally connected to them? There can be no doubt that they are not. In respect of s 12(2), it is pertinent to note that the second respondent does not say how the short licence duration of two years ensures compliance with the Act, or assists in raising revenue for the State, or encourages competitiveness and the provision of high quality broadcasting services. Similarly, in respect of s 12(3) the second respondent does not say why a licence duration of one year, as opposed to a longer period, for community radio broadcasting would ensure “that at some point every community will have had an opportunity to broadcast.” Are the means to impair the freedom of expression no more than is necessary to accomplish the objectives? In my view, the means are certainly more than is necessary to accomplish the legislative objectives. I say so because there are other ways of achieving the