c) any limitation of the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, or what is provided for in this Constitution. 5 The freedom of expression and speech has been the subject of interpretation by this court in various decisions including Charles Onyango Obbo & Andrew Mujuni Mwenda v Attorney General, Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2002 and Andrew Mujuni 10 Mwenda & The East African v Attorney General, Constitutional Petitions No 12 of 2005 and No. 3 of 2006. The three cases were about the freedom of expression as it related to the established mass media at the time which predated the internet such as newspapers, radio shows and television news programs. Today, these media co-exist with the new media which are the outgrowth of the 15 technological innovations around the internet, and which are the subject of this petition. In Andrew Mujuni Mwenda & the East African (supra) the Supreme Court considered the following two issues: i) Whether sections 39, 40, 41 and 179 of the Penal Code Act, Cap ?o 120, are inconsistent with and or in contravention of Article 29 (l)(a) of the Constitution. ii) Whether sections 39, 40, 41, and 179 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 120, being limitations of the enjoyment of the freedom of 25 expression are acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society under Article 43 (1) (c) of the Constitution. In coming to their decision, the Supreme Court observed as follows: 30 “Our view is that the Supreme Court case of Charles Onyango Obbo and Andrew Mwenda cited by all counsel, considered in depth and is 13