Report Wire - It’s the responsibility of TV anchors in debates to see that hate speech does not happen: Supreme Court

Report Wire

News at Another Perspective

It’s the responsibility of TV anchors in debates to see that hate speech does not happen: Supreme Court

3 min read
SC trashes 13,147 old cases in one stroke to unclog justice delivery system at top court

By PTI

NEW DELHI: Voicing displeasure over hate speech on TV information channels, the Supreme Court Wednesday needed it know why the federal government was a “mute spectator” and whether or not it intends to enact a legislation to curb it, as really helpful by the Law Commission.

Noting that the position of the anchor is vital throughout TV debates, the courtroom mentioned it is the responsibility of the anchor to forestall hate speeches from taking place.

A bench of Justices Okay M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy mentioned there must be an institutional mechanism to take care of hate speech.

“The role of anchor (in TV debates) is very important. These speeches on mainstream media or social media that is unregulated. Mainstream TV channels still hold sway. The role of anchor is critical and it’s their duty to see that hate speech doesn’t occur – Many a time those who want to speak are muted,” the bench noticed.

The high courtroom mentioned there must be a synchronised technique to take care of the difficulty of hate speech and that the nation must be a accountable democracy the place there may be accountability.

The apex courtroom expressed dissatisfaction over steps taken by the federal government and orally mentioned, “Why is the government remaining a mute spectator? The bench directed the Union of India to make clear its stand as to whether it intends to enact a law on the Law Commision’s recommendations for prohibiting incitement of hate speech.”

The high courtroom was listening to a batch of petitions about hate speech and rumour-mongering.

NEW DELHI: Voicing displeasure over hate speech on TV information channels, the Supreme Court Wednesday needed it know why the federal government was a “mute spectator” and whether or not it intends to enact a legislation to curb it, as really helpful by the Law Commission.

Noting that the position of the anchor is vital throughout TV debates, the courtroom mentioned it is the responsibility of the anchor to forestall hate speeches from taking place.

A bench of Justices Okay M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy mentioned there must be an institutional mechanism to take care of hate speech.

“The role of anchor (in TV debates) is very important. These speeches on mainstream media or social media that is unregulated. Mainstream TV channels still hold sway. The role of anchor is critical and it’s their duty to see that hate speech doesn’t occur – Many a time those who want to speak are muted,” the bench noticed.

The high courtroom mentioned there must be a synchronised technique to take care of the difficulty of hate speech and that the nation must be a accountable democracy the place there may be accountability.

The apex courtroom expressed dissatisfaction over steps taken by the federal government and orally mentioned, “Why is the government remaining a mute spectator? The bench directed the Union of India to make clear its stand as to whether it intends to enact a law on the Law Commision’s recommendations for prohibiting incitement of hate speech.”

The high courtroom was listening to a batch of petitions about hate speech and rumour-mongering.