Courtroom Media Debate In this new digital age of increasing access to information, and also the merger of news and entertainment, should cameras or social media be allowed in the courtroom or not? Are cameras to be used to give the defendant a fair trial? Or will cameras be used as footage for entertainment purposes? Although the media has First Amendment Rights, certain media outlets can fabricate facts about a courtroom case. One must truly question the practice of using cameras or other outlets of media in the courtroom and the effects it has before, during, and after the proceedings and verdicts.
This right is protected by Article 14, 20, 21, and 22 of the constitution. With the growth of Cable Television and Channels, Local Radios, New Papers and Magazines Networks and Internet the range at the end of 20th century and beginning of 21st century reach of media has increased a lot and their interference in justice become famous. But this right of fair trial may be defeated if the media while reporting a matter use of such a language which may have an effect to influence the mind of a Judge and control the judicial process. There are numerous cases in which media has conducted the trail before the judgment and even after the judgment had passed the verdict. Many times verdict of media are against the order of the courts because of this judges may also come in limelight of public and they may be criticized in the public.
The technology has been advanced and transformed which has changed the concept of privacy in today’s world. As far as our thinking capacity allows us, we consider privacy as protecting our life and personal information from government although such attempts are made by them to keep an eye and to control our behavior. The privacy issue has spread to such an extent that can clearly be observed by the given statement of Edward Snowden few months ago. He stated about his access to such documents about the revelation of various U.S and British programs through using internet, web, television and such mediums that completely destroys our privacy. Edward claimed about the revelation of the American’s government compelling Verizon mobile phone and programs like ‘Prism’ through which National Security Agency-NSA are able to get direct access to information and phone records of millions of Americans through internet and websites like Google, Apple, Facebook etc which is completely against ethics and ultimately ensures no privacy to the phone and computer or web users.
The Media is an important tool in providing free access of information and opinion, thereby allowing a democratic process to function in a meaningful way. The media serves as a counter-balance to government power. The propaganda model focuses on the effect money and social power has over media outlets and the abilities of individuals and corporations who possess adequate funds and positions of power to filter the news. In the propaganda model, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky argued that, there is a certain class within society (the dominant elite) who sets the agenda of national and international news to the tiers of the media that flows to the rest of the society. In the past, intellectuals were targeted by governments and corporations to disseminate information or propaganda to the general public.
1. Indeed, many at times some individuals may find themselves question about the reason that why freedom of speech is so solidly entrenched in the American constitutional law and how wide is it being embraced by the general public. Indeed, it is imperative to think that overtime time historians, legal scholars, judges and philosophers have explored and attempted to give theoretical importance for the solid protection of freedom of press. Moreover, the First Amendment provides protection for freedom of speech that amounts to protection of press and has built ingrained perception that freedom of press is an indispensable tool of self-governance within the democratic society such the American one. According to Tedford and Herbeck (2001) arguments, it can be thought that free press came into existence when America was born.
The right to privacy is not only a human right but an element to various legal traditions which may restrain both government and private party action that threaten the privacy of an individual The fourth, fifth and the ninth amendment protect our right to privacy. Today our privacy is being threaten due to the growing issues that threaten our national security. With growing amount of terrorist attacks, bombings, school shooting, and other massive shootings it definitely seems to warrant the loss of privacy. However, how far is too far and who decides? Who enforces the laws to make sure our rights are upheld and who decides?
The freedom of expression is a crucial component in the morals that construct modern democracy. It provides citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions on any situation without the fear of government inference. But what happens when a person’s freedom of expression also grants them the freedom to offend another? Addressing the question: “In a democracy should we be free to say, exhibit or print what we like?” requires a knowledge of both sides of the argument: those whose expression is offensive and those offended. Encompassed in this essay is an analysis of journals on opposite sides of the spectrum that will help give a broader outlook on self-expression and the possible consequences of such freedom.
Regulation of Media in India 1. Introduction The freedom of speech and expression has been characterised as “the very life of civil liberty” in the Constituent Assembly Debates. The freedom of the press, while not recognised as a separate freedom under Fundamental Rights, is folded into the freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court has described this freedom as the “ark of the covenant of democracy”. The freedom of the press serves the larger purpose of the right of the people to be informed of a broad spectrum of facts, views and opinions.
Freedom of speech is the right to express or communicate an individual’s ideas, views and opinions without any obstructions or fear of punishment. It is not limited to speech alone, and includes written and other forms of communication such as freedom of press which gives one the right to question, criticize and voice their opinions. Freedom of speech (or expression) is a fundamental human right which is also recognized by the constitution of India. The constitution of India guarantees individual rights which are stated in articles 19, 20, 21 and 22. Article 19 being the most important, makes the freedom of speech and expression, a fundamental right.
Disclosure of information regarding functioning of the Government must be the rule. The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information. It includes the right not only to give but also to acquire and import ideas and information from others about matters of common interest i.e. Article 19 (1) (a) includes right to be informed. The tremendous rise of corruption in government departments has made it sine qua non to authorise people with the right to know.