There’s an interesting clause in the South African Constitution, in the Bill of Rights section dealing with freedom of speech:

16. Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes ­
   1. freedom of the press and other media;
   2. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
   3. freedom of artistic creativity; and
   4. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
   1. propaganda for war;
   2. incitement of imminent violence; or
   3. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Which raises the question:

I have, for example, defended Operation Iraqi Freedom, both in print and online. (The arguments and caveats are beside the point for present purposes.) Was doing so unconstitutional? Does that constitute “propaganda for war”?

If you were to argue, for argument’s sake, in favour of military action to topple the economic illiterate Robert Mugabe, the brutal tyrant of Zimbabwe, would you have the constitutional right to do so, in South Africa? How about advocating intervention in Darfur, or a foreign civil war, on humanitarian or regional stability grounds? Is that propaganda for war? Is that illegal?

How about suggesting that South Africa can’t afford the costs of fighting AIDS because it must stand ready to defend itself from invasion by the United States? (I kid you not.)

I’m taking the question ad absurdum, perhaps. Surely advocating self-defence (of the sensible variety) isn’t covered. But what exactly does constitute “propaganda for war”? Any constitutional law experts willing to venture an opinion? Is such a clause not deplorably broad and vague?

Perhaps this is why our border guards didn’t give our allies from Botswana free passage, in time for the invasion of Lesotho. The constitution prohibited us from telling the officers we’re going to war, so if a party of heavily-armed troops turns up at the border post, please let them through. Perhaps that’s why our troops were so surprised when the Lesotho Defence Force actually had the temerity to shoot at them. They never got any of this “we will fight them on the beaches” stuff, because Lesotho doesn’t have beaches to fight on, and besides, it would have constituted unconstitunional “propaganda for war”.

Voir la vie en steampunk:

For a year from September 2005, under the nose of the Panthéon’s unsuspecting security officials, a group of intrepid “illegal restorers” [known as the UnterGunther] set up a secret workshop and lounge in a cavity under the building’s famous dome. Under the supervision of group member Jean-Baptiste Viot, a professional clockmaker, they pieced apart and repaired the antique clock that had been left to rust in the building since the 1960s. Only when their clandestine revamp of the elaborate timepiece had been completed did they reveal themselves.

More details and pictures of this spectacular stunt by the clandestine urban explorers can be found at what appears to be the UnterGunther’s own account, and over at greg.org.

Just to be a drip, I’ll note that I’m a little surprised that the court cleared them of breaking into the Panthéon. The court’s duty is surely to apply the law, not make exceptions for horological Robin Hoods? These guys might have been both good and competent, but doesn’t a message that says, “It’s okay to break in, as long as you fix things, not break things,” set a somewhat disputable precedent?

Still. It rocks. Around the clock. (Sorry.)