"Based on the analyses of Rwandan and Kenyan cases, hate speech legislation is not an appropriate tool to prevent harm emanating from hate speech. The empirically verifiable costs of the tool by far outweigh its putative benefits. In Rwanda, opposition politicians are convicted for criticising government policies, and journalists sentenced to decades of imprisonment for covering sensitive issues, held in pre-trial detention for years to be finally acquitted, driven into exile and forced to practise self-censorship. Whole news media are suspended or completely closed for providing platforms for anti-government stances. The persecution of individual politicians and journalists has a great negative impact on society. Access to unbiased information is impeded and the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’ destroyed. Instead of supporting a process of reconciliation, the laws are used to suppress a necessary, healthy and constructive debate on sensitive topics of the past. As a result, citizens strive to switch to other forms of conflict resolution, which ‘ironically’ means that hate speech legislation itself is misused to settle personal disputes. Rwandan hate speech legislation has itself become a tool that fuels further conflict. While the Rwandan government abuses hate speech legislation to silence its critics in order to secure its power position, the Kenyan government employs hate speech provisions to justify its surveillance of Kenyan citizens. At the same time, politicians who publicly call for displacements and violence are allowed to escape punishment in the name of cohesion." (Conclusion, page 96)