Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 409779,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/409779/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 529,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kang’ata",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1826,
        "legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
        "slug": "irungu-kangata"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I beg to move:- THAT, the Second Schedule be amended— (a) by deleting paragraph 15; (b) in paragraph 18, by deleting subparagraph (3); (c) by deleting paragraph 21; (d) in paragraph 22, by deleting subparagraph (3); (e) by deleting paragraph 23. It is my opinion that this Second Schedule is infringing on the independence and freedom of the Press in various ways. There are several instances in this Schedule in my own opinion where the freedom of the editor, the freedom of speech and also the right of the public to know have been infringed on and may therefore be running counter to the Constitution. For instance, I am of the view we delete paragraph 15(4). It provides that “Things concerning a person’s home, family, religion, tribe, health, sexuality, personal life and private affairs are covered by the concept of privacy except where these impinge upon the public.” I fear that this clause will be used to gag the media and, therefore, media freedom will be lost if this clause is not deleted. This is because the burden of proving is on the media instead of it being on the person who is complaining. So, therefore, I fear that if this clause passes we may have a situation where the freedom of the media is restricted. We should leave this one to the editors. That is my own opinion. It is them to decide which issues cover the realm of privacy but we should not provide it in an Act of Parliament. That is making it too static."
}