tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post1251275595444613110..comments2023-10-25T05:05:00.272-07:00Comments on Reflections: Supreme Court Propounds New Doctrine On Media RegulationAnupam Patrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179237569294043987noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-11566717511160882962012-09-13T08:15:04.752-07:002012-09-13T08:15:04.752-07:00You are welcome brother. I'm glad that your in...You are welcome brother. I'm glad that your info base is updated. Knowledge is power bro !!!!Anupam Patrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179237569294043987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-5647052836560849122012-09-13T08:06:58.780-07:002012-09-13T08:06:58.780-07:00really your blog is informative one,I get to know ...really your blog is informative one,I get to know about this through you my friend.....thank youAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14508093537629223388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-39471096202469285122012-09-13T02:21:07.937-07:002012-09-13T02:21:07.937-07:00Yeah absolutely right. But then I fail to understa...Yeah absolutely right. But then I fail to understand why no action was taken against twitter for having allowed publication of prohibited matter.<br /><br />As far as the issue of making remarks in House of Commons is concerned, it's true that they can't be challenged in courts of law due to legislative privelege. But I have serious doubts whether that would apply in this case, because when the MP made the remark, a prohibitory court order was already in place. And the MP knew that he was making a remark which is likely to be published as part of the House proceedings.<br /><br />I'll tell you what Nishant, everyone hankers after an opportunity to score brownie points. The MP knew that by saying against the prohibition he'd be a favourite of the media. And what better than that for a politician.<br /><br />A real legislator would have never discussed the issue considering the sensitivity of a legal injunction. <br /><br />And the Court has very rightly pointed out that though privacy can't be protected all the time, harassment can. Everyone knowing a secret affair is one thing and repeated broadcasting of the same (with all expected spicing) is entirely another thing. So you see the footballer may not have lost the battle entirely, with only having banned the media from continuous broadcasting of his private affairs. <br /><br />But I seriously believe, Twitter, in this case too like any news channel hankering after TRP, chose profit over ethics.<br /><br /><br />Anupam Patrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179237569294043987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-89750389374474165812012-09-13T02:02:33.467-07:002012-09-13T02:02:33.467-07:00The implementation gets pretty difficult. If I rem...The implementation gets pretty difficult. If I remember correctly Ryan Giggs, the footballer, had got such a blanket order but his name came out because some MP mentioned it in their House of Commons. And remarks made in House of Commons cant be sued against. And the reporters were free to report about the House proceedings. http://news.sky.com/story/856674/gagging-order-footballer-named-in-commons<br /><br />So it will be pretty difficult to restrain each and every individual.Nishanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16203681110201632111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-44546878231659245052012-09-13T00:27:09.313-07:002012-09-13T00:27:09.313-07:00Actually one has to read the full judgment to unde...Actually one has to read the full judgment to understand whether it applies against social media. But I guess, generally speaking, in my considered interpretation of the judgment, it should apply to social media as well. Because if it doesn't then what news channels will do is that though they will not broadcast it on TV, they will simply poist it on, say for instance, their facebook page or on their website. Thereby defeating the whole purpose of the directive.<br /><br />The implementation will be difficult but not impossible. What the accused / aggrieved person can do is get a blanket order (against all kinds of media publication) in his favour from the Court and if after that anyone publishes the concerned matter in any manner in any media, the accused / aggrieved person can drag him to Court for contempt of Court.<br /><br />But that's all easier said than done. I agree with you on that.<br />Thanks Nishant for sharing your pov. Anupam Patrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179237569294043987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-57938469478451837492012-09-13T00:19:36.029-07:002012-09-13T00:19:36.029-07:00With the addition of social media to conventional ...With the addition of social media to conventional media, this would be even more difficult to implementNishanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16203681110201632111noreply@blogger.com