morals. Similar provisions can be found in various conventions and treaties that provide for the right to freedom of expression. Though these provisions seem clear, what constitutes a justifiable limitation to the right to freedom of expression in terms of the above covenants has been interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. Unfortunately in some jurisdictions the limitations have been interpreted broadly thereby severely limiting the right to freedom of expression and consequently artistic freedom. Comparatively, the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) finds that even if the speech shocks or offends it can be protected speech; defamation of a public official or a well-known celebrity is often a protected speech because for a democracy it is important to discuss public matters and to have alternative opinions. In 1986 the ECtHR in the case of Lingens v Austria decided that a politician should accept more criticism than ordinary people, and cannot make a journalist not criticize him, by referring to the necessity to protect his reputation. Consequently, libel laws which allow the prosecution of journalists who criticize public personalities shall be balanced with freedom of the press. In this landmark Lingens case, the European Court stated that: Freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of political leaders. More generally, freedom of political debate is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society ... The limits of acceptable criticism are, accordingly, wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed ... and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance.81 The Radio programs in Rwanda on, ‘Radio Mille Collines’ which fuelled the Genocide in 1994 provide proof that freedoms should be exercised with responsibility and restrictions. But, these restrictions shall be grounded by legitimate reasons, which shall be examined by courts. Lingens v. Austria, Application no. 9815/82, Judgment, Strasbourg, 8 July 1986, available on http://portales.te.gob.mx/internacional/sites/portales.te.gob.mx.internacional/files/CASEOF %20%20LINGENS%20v%20AUSTRIA.pdf accessed 7 July 2015 81 65 | P a g e