Think Seriously, for 10-Jan-2018:
The Supreme court has observed, The freedom of speech and
expression of the media must be allowed to the "fullest" and the press
may not be hauled up for defamation for "some wrong reporting".
"In a democracy, you (petitioner) must learn to tolerate, there could be
some error or enthusiasm in reporting an alleged scam. But, we must allow
freedom of speech and expression to press at the fullest. There may be some
wrong reporting. For that they need not be hauled up for defamation".
By extending the
same logic, will the Supreme court allow other professionals, say doctors and
engineers to practice their trade freely at the expense of life and property?
Also is the Supreme court tolerant of the criticism of itself and its judges?
Then, why should there be a provision of “Defamation” at all- scrap it. What do
you think?
I think the bottom
line is that for press, it must have the prima facie evidence for reporting,
and for individuals, they must be guided by social norms. On one hand we
criticize “Bar Balas” for cultural degradation, but on the other support vulgar
vituperations of other individuals. Isn’t it double standard? Looks like
“Freedom of Expression” is too good for us.
