Managing Election- Relation Violence for Democratic Stability in Ghana In a democratic society like Ghana for instance, although individuals, politicians and laypeople alike have the freedom to engage in any discourse, there are constitutional rights and responsibilities that regulate speech acts. The Constitution has fully entrenched the right to freedom of expression and assembly as captured in Article 21(1), guaranteeing all persons the right to 'freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media'. In trying to establish the extent of the need to regulate speech, the effects of hate speech and rhetoric in political discourse need to be evaluated to establish the actual or potentially detrimental impact they have on a democratic society. While free speech is a fundamental element and demonstration of a'democratic society', it is increasingly becoming necessary to draw a distinction between free speech and hate speech. This is because freedom of speech or expression is not a license for persons to engage in insulting language, dehumanizing statements or hostile rhetoric targeted at specific individuals or groups on the grounds of identity, ethnicity, political party or religious affiliation, for instance. Because, by so doing, one would have overstepped the boundary of free speech and entered into the domain of hate speech. Going back to the question of whether speech should be regulated in Ghana, two schools of thought have always emerged. The first being freedom of speech enhanced by seeking self-determination(positive thought), while the second elaborates on the dire consequences of such utterances if not checked(negative thought) – an example of the latter being that they can destroy the stable democracy that the country currently enjoys. From real-life experience, it would seem that the need to regulate free speech arises particularly when public discourse of a 124