Judgment No. CCZ 9/2016 42 Const. Application No. CCZ 316/2012 said it subscribed to DSTV. Mr Wekare also said DSTV was the broadcasting service provider of his choice. It is true that freedom of expression goes further than the theoretical recognition of the right to receive ideas and information. It also includes, and cannot be separated from the right to choose from which effective medium of communication one wants to receive ideas and information. Section 38B(1) of the Act does not guarantee the ZBC an audience. It does not compel the holder of a listener’s licence to receive the broadcasting service from the corporation. All it does is to compel a person who is in possession of a receiver to pay a licence fee because the gadget in question is a “receiver” capable of receiving a broadcasting service from any provider. It sets a pre-condition for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression by the person in possession of a receiver. The fact that any given listener is averse to the material that the ZBC broadcasts, whether from a recreational or political perspective, does not necessarily violate his right to freedom of expression. Section 38B(1) of the Act is not to the effect that the equipment possessed by a person under the obligation to pay the licence fee should be capable of receiving a broadcasting service from the ZBC. The right of a person who does not want to view or listen to programmes broadcast by the ZBC by television or radio is not violated. The person is obliged to pay a licence fee for the possession of the receiver whether he or she wants to receive broadcasting service from ZBC or not.