96. The Respondent never addressed us on this issue and in such a situation, we are reminded of the words of Iain Currie and Johan de Waall who in Bill of Rights Handbook stated thus:“Freedom of speech is valuable, not just by virtue of the consequences it has, but because it is an essential and ‘constitutive’ feature of a just political society that government treat all its adult members … as responsible moral agents. That requirement has two dimensions. First, morally responsible people insist on making up their own minds what is good or bad in life or in politics, or what is true and false in matters of justice or faith. Government insults its citizens, and denies their moral responsibility, when it decrees that they cannot be trusted to hold opinions that might persuade them to dangerous or offensive convictions. We retain our dignity, as individuals, only by insisting that no one – no official and no majority has the right to withhold an opinion from us on the ground that we are not fit to hear and consider it.” 97. We also agree with the submissions by the Amici Curiae that where restrictions are placed on the enjoyment of any right, the same must be reasonable and the restriction must also be rational. What is the reason and rationale preferred for some of the restrictions above? We see none and in S. vs. Mamabolo [2001] ZACC 17, Kriegler J. stated as follows:“Freedom of expression, especially when gauged in conjunction with its accompanying fundamental freedoms, is of the utmost importance in the kind of open and democratic society the Constitution has set as our aspirational norm. Having regard to our recent past of thought control, censorship and enforced Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 36