The Supreme Court has taken steps to lay down a code for media reporting. This attempt at prior restraint on the media is a dangerous move with precedent from authoritarian polities. In a context where the judiciary has been lax in defending the media from attacks which seek to curb its freedom, such unilateral moves will not remedy bad reporting but rather make conditions worse for the media to play...
More »SEARCH RESULT
Ban & seize: Congress MP Bill out to gag media by Maneesh Chhibber
The private member’s Bill that Rahul Gandhi’s close aide and Congress MP Meenakshi Natarajan was scheduled to introduce in Parliament last week lays down a draconian set of rules clearly aimed to gag and threaten the media in the name of “protecting national interest”. Called the Print and Electronic Media Standards and Regulation Bill, 2012, it provides for a media regulatory authority — part selected by the I&B minister and three...
More »Food fascism: The vegetarian hypocrisy in India by Murali Shanmugavelan
This month a group of Dalit (or Untouchables, as they were formerly labelled) students organised a Beef Festival in Osmania University of Hyderabad. It was the festival to assert their culinary rights in public and make a political statement of dietary habits of Dalits and Muslims – by cooking and eating beef Biryani on campus. About 2000 students participated and although it started out well, the festival was disrupted and students...
More »Chilling effects and frozen words-Lawrence Liang
While freedom of speech and expression is an individual right, its actualisation often relies on a vast infrastructure of intermediaries. In the offline world, this includes newspapers, television channels, public auditoriums, etc. It is often assumed that the internet has created a more robust public sphere of speech by doing away with many structural barriers to free speech. But the fact of the matter is that even if the internet enables...
More »Govt wades into trial-by-media battle
-The Telegraph The government today told a Constitution bench that the right to freedom of speech was for the “benefit” of the public, not the media, as it backed the Supreme Court’s attempt to lay down norms for reporting judicial proceedings. “Freedom of speech is not for the benefit of the press but for the benefit of the public,” additional solicitor-general Indira Jaisingh said, marking a shift from the cautious stand the...
More »