On Wednesday, the Supreme Court expressed its anguish and displeasure with hate speech through television debates, referring to the “visual media” as the “chief medium of hate speech” and questioning the government on why it is “standing by as a mute witness when all of this is happening” and treating it as a “trivial matter.”

Noting that “hate speech can take various forms… sort of humiliate a group” and that its distribution through the visual media can have a “devastating effect,” a bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy asked the Centre to indicate whether it planned to pass any legislation on the matter. The bench said that “hatred drives TRPs and profits” and said that it would think about setting up some rules to hold the field until the government passes laws about the issue.

The panel was considering a slew of petitions alleging hate speech on various TV shows. The petitioners have asked the court to order the Centre to make efforts to reduce incidences of such discourse. According to Justice Joseph, the problem will persist “unless there is an institutional mechanism to deal with it,” and “what can be done until the government acts is” to “possibly consider” acting along the lines of the Vishaka case, in which the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to deal with workplace sexual harassment.

The broadcast regulator’s counsel informed the bench of its actions with regard to the channels, including the imposition of penalties. However, Justice Roy stated, “How will the message spread unless the repercussions of infringement come hard on the individual who is violating?” You’ve completed 4,000 orders. Is there any impact from the 4,000 orders you’ve issued?

“Hate promotes TRPs and profit.” As a result, this chicken feed penalty is fragile. He remarked, “There will be no tears in their pockets. “The most significant point is where our nation is headed,” Justice Joseph added. Where is our country going if we are literally feeding on hate speech? ” “What is your stance?” he inquired of the center’s counsel. Have you responded with a counter-affidavit? What is the government of India’s position? Why is the government of India remaining silent while all of this is going on? “

According to the lawyer, the government did not treat it lightly. He noted that the Supreme Court had already asked the government to collect information from the states on compliance with some of the court’s earlier directives and that only 14 states had responded so far.

The court ordered the government to respond within two weeks with any information it had gathered and to “clearly indicate its stand with regard to the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India (in this regard) and whether it is contemplating any legislation in accordance with the recommendations.”

One of the petitioners, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, urged the court to issue a notice to the Press Council as well if it wished to investigate hate speech in the media. “We made the reference to this (visual media) since the primary medium of hate speech appears to be through the visual media,” Justice Joseph added.

Someone writes something on a piece of paper, but no one reads it. Nobody has the luxury of time. However, visual media has a power that has been recognized by this court since the censorship case. “The distinction between visual and print media is so stark that it has a devastating effect.

Continue to read more latest news

 186 total views,  1 views today