of each case. The fact that a message could also be expressed in another place is insufficient to require an assembly to be held elsewhere, even if that location is within the sight and sound of the target audience. 1.6. If, however, having regard to all relevant factors of a specific case, the authorities reach the reasonable conclusion that it is necessary to change the place of an assembly, a suitable alternative place should be made available. Any alternate location must be such that the message the assembly seeks to convey may still be effectively communicated to those to whom it is directed. In other words, the assembly should still occur within the sight and sound of the target audience. 1.7. The protest organisers should be able to communicate their message effectively and must therefore, be facilitated within the chosen area. Unless compelling reasons exist to justify restricting protests, for example, in the interest of national security, public order, or the protection of the rights and freedom of others, the police must not suggest an alternative site even though the suggested site is close to the site initially proposed unless the aforementioned compelling reasons exist. Yet if a change is necessitated, alternate sites should be provided that are as close as possible to the initial proposed site. 1.8.An important consideration would be that if the protesters can effectively exercise their rights by other means or at another place, their rights may not be violated or restricted. In that case, the refusal of the police to allow the protest at the site already decided by the organizers for the protection and freedom of others may not amount to an unlawful restriction. 2. Content of the protest 2.1. Speech and other forms of expression enjoy protection under Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution. Therefore, any restrictions on the assemblies should not be based on the content of the message they seek to communicate. 15