As to permissible limitations of the freedom, Section 61(5) mentions incitement of violence, advocacy of hatred, malicious injury to a person’s reputation or dignity and malicious breach of privacy, as grounds on the basis of which freedom of expression could be limited. The limitation clause in various constitutions has been abused to stifle all opinions and ideas considered to be contrary to the views of those who hold power in the society. This runs contrary to how freedom of expression should be exercised as it is now well established that in a democracy an unpopular minority view of what is true or right should not be smothered by a majoritarian view of that which is true or right. If that is allowed, then freedom of expression will be an illusion. Room for expression of diverse points of view is of the highest importance, not only for those who espouse a cause or position and then defend it, but also for those who hear and pass judgment on that defence. The belief that an opinion is false, or in any other way detestable, cannot be grounds for its suppression.32 When speech or some form of artistic expression such as a play or concert is prevented from taking place or concluding by disruptive protest, the effect is just as surely an attack on freedom of speech or artistic expression as the deliberate suppression or prohibition of a speaker or artist by authorities. At the same time, however, the rights of free expression enjoyed by speakers or performers do not negate the rights of free expression of those who would protest the speech or performance.33 It is unpopular ideas, or ideas that the mainstream would like to ignore, that must be debated.34 The US court in Hustler Magazine and Another v Falwell was of the view that there is no such thing as a false idea. Further that “if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for 32Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression, http://spg.umich.edu/sites/default/files/601X01_0.PDF 33 http://spg.umich.edu/sites/default/files/601X01_0.PDF 34 In Re Munhumeso and Ors 1994 (1) ZLR 49 (SC)at 57F University of Michigan 25 | P a g e