Media Regulation Vs Freedom of Expression
India is considered the largest democracy in the World. A free country which is also recognized from its media. Through ages many countries have tried to give "Freedom of Expression" to their media whether it be print media, broadcast media or the latest online media. But have we ever thought that what is actually considered as "Freedom of Expression". Our constitution in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, from which is derived the freedom of the press or the media, because there is no separate mention of media in the Constitution. It is the individual's right to freedom of speech and expression in which it is understood. But on the other hand it is subjected to reasonable restrictions under specified heads which are mentioned in Article 19(2): like public order, contempt of court, etc.
With 'Freedom'comes a lot of responsibilities for media. Actually the media is the mirror to the world but nowadays the roles are changing from informer to opinion making, influencing and decision making.
Recently the Chairman of Press Council of India while commenting on the reportage of Social Activist Anna Harare's agitation said that a large section of print and electronic media was swayed by emotions and consequently became a part of the movement which defies the role of media of an informer 1. These kind of events prove that there is no actual regulation on media in our country.
Media under the disguise of citizen journalism, freedom of expression and other rights has exploited the vitality of "Freedom of Expression". In our country there are numerous bodies/commissions which recommend the codes for various media. These codes are also revised from time to time through a laborious research on their applicability in simultaneous times to be followed. But the biggest concern is the absence of any regulating body which keeps a check when any media commits a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document