While entirely applauding the notion that citizen journalists have an
unalienable right to pursue their calling (and since they have neither editors
nor publishers other than themselves, also to remain liable to whatever
objection other citizens have to their published information), I object to the
notion that bloggers need to formally organise and be registered as such, in
order to get action as you suggest. In fact, the Press Council registration
itself should not be a bar to the PC taking NDTV's behaviour on board.

Is there anywhere in the constitution, Cr PC or anywhere else where unorganised
groups of persons are banned from collectively approaching the courts as an
unregistered group of individuals? In fact, the courts actually recognise
actions arising from such petitioners as 'public interest litigation' already.

I ask this particularly because the government has filed a motion in the SC
stating that Indian citizens do not have a right to cast a negative vote. Just
because the government says something (in a court, or in the newspapers through
a press release) does not mean it is either true or in fact the government's
stand on this issue. It is merely a submission in a case, and until the SC
determines a judgment in the case it remains only that.

Vickram
http://communicall.wordpress.com
http://vvcrishna.wordpress.com




________________________________
From: Na.Vijayashankar <naavi@...>
To: cyberlaw-india@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 January, 2009 22:14:14
Subject: [claw-in] NDTV needs to apologise


The recent incident where the NDTV Managing Director, Ms Barkha Dutt
has reportedly taken offence to a comment made in a blog forcing the
blogger to tender an apology reflects a sad state of affairs where
one journalist is trying to curb another. The issue related to the TV
coverage of the Mumbai blasts which the blogger called "Shoddy
Journalism". (see posting of november 27, 2008) .Subsequently, he
is appeared to have been forced to tender an apology having been
threatened of a defamation suit by Ms Barkha Dutt.It is unfortunate
that one journalist who should know more about journalistic ethics
and freedom of expression decided to use the clout she wields on the
blogger.It is difficult to accept that the blogger's remarks amounted
to "Defamation" and perhaps the strong notice that some lawyer might
have drafted on behalf of Ms Barkha must have made the blogger decide
that it is not worth fighting against a big channel which also is
considered Pro-Government and must have political clout too.

This is a clear case of a blogger being intimidated for expressing
his honest views.

I urge the Press Council of India to step in suo-motu and take action
against this assault on the freedom of expression of a fellow Net
Journalist.

In the event Press Council thinks that the blogger is not a
journalist and not registered with them and therefore not eligible to
be protected, then it is time for bloggers to set up a "Blogger's
Association" and seek recognition as a "Collaborative media vehicle".
This collaborative entity should register itself as a "journal" and
seek registration with the Press Council.

In the meantime, even without the responsibility to protect a
blogger, Press Council should consider that it has a duty to prevent
its own members acting unethically and should initiate a disciplinary
proceedings against NDTV so that a counter apology from them is
obtained.

Views and counter views welcome.

Naavi

Some reactions to note:
http://www.vmohanty .com/posts/ open-letter- to-ndtv/

http://shripriya. com/blog/ 2009/01/28/ shame-on- ndtv-and- barkha-dutt/

http://retributions .nationalinteres t.in/ndtvs- assault-on- free-speech/

http://www.ipatrix. com/muffling- a-blogger/

http://thecomicproj ect.blogspot. com/2009/ 01/throw- constitution-
away.html

http://www.prempani cker.com/ index.php? /site/when_ free_speech_ bears_a_p
rice_tag/

http://www.desipund it.com/2009/ 01/28/blogger- silenced- by-ndtv/

Twitter Reaction:

http://www.hashtags .org/tag/ ckunte

http://search. twitter.com/ search?q= ckunte






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]