[37] In my view the answer is a resounding ‘No’. To say that someone may get hurt (kutokhala umzaqa) and to opine that the governance is a dictatorship does not in any way impact on defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public reputation health; neither does it impact upon anyone’s or anyone’s rights and freedoms. It is just an opinion, period. I noted earlier on that the applicant could well have said that this is democracy at work, and in that he may have upset words somebody else. I reiterate that the complained of do not fall within the legitimate exceptions. The result of that is that the applicant, in posting the words facebook complained of on his page, acted within his constitutional rights per Sections 14 (3), 23(1) and 24 (1). [38] Before I conclude this opinion I make a brief reference to Section 23 (2) of the Constitution which stipulates that a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of freedom of conscience except with their free consent. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that through the contract of employment the applicant consented to the hindrance of his constitutional rights. My view is that this court cannot deal with that without reference to the applicant’s contract of employment – its terms and conditions. And to do that would 25