Freedom speech trial

The three Constitutions, whether written or unwritten, proclaim, protect and promote the same set of fundamental rights: both the First Amendment of the American Constitution [3] and Article 19 1 a of the Indian Constitution [4] guarantee the freedom of speech and expression.

The Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution protects the right to life, liberty and property; India constitution, likewise, protects life and personal liberties. The Sixth Amendment of the American Constitution likewise protects and ensures the Right to a Speedy and Public trial, by an impartial jury. Although we no longer have trial by jury, our Constitution also ensures the same right of fair trial. Even though England has an unwritten constitution, it works on similar lines.

Therefore, the three countries share a common ideology when it comes to taking a stand between the freedoms of speech versus fair trial. In several cases, media was credited for their intervention but sometimes, media was also criticized for the innocent people ignoring the importance of account. Union of India [5] , it was concluded that freedom of speech plays an integral role in forming public opinion and is the mother of all other liberties.

Due to media trials, there are high possibilities of the judge being influenced. In the Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi case [7] , the Apex Court observed: A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of the rule of law.

It can well lead to a miscarriage of justice. A Judge has to guard himself against any such pressure and he is to be guided strictly by the rules of law. Trial by media reached its zenith in the recent Sushant Singh Rajput Case.

Even though the deceased family found it overwhelming to get so much media attention for the speedy justice of their lost member, this death of a young talented actor in no time turned into show business for many media houses. In the name of investigative journalism to get to the truth, knowingly or unknowingly, the rights of the accused got highly infringed. Presumption of innocence, and international human right under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14 was overlooked by large.

In the name of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the media formed biased opinions without much authenticity. No court should ever be placed in the position of having to make decisions of this kind.

The only way I can read this is that it criminalizes the holding of a particular state of mind. This is totalitarian. Such matters should not attract the attention of the law at all. The court found that Bolt and his employer, the Herald and Weekly Times , contravened the Racial Discrimination Act because the comments were not made reasonably or in good faith. They offended the sensitivities of those about whom the articles were written.

Disparagement directed at the legitimacy of racial or religious identification of a group of people is a common cause for racial or religious tension. A slur upon the racial legitimacy of a group of people is just as, if not more, destructive of racial tolerance than a slur directed at the real or imagined practices or traits of those people. This is weird. Now political correctness seems to be resurrecting it. I could go further and it would get more complicated.

Can I now haul before the criminal courts anyone who denies this? Journalists often make too much of both the importance and the perils of their occupation. Nonetheless, cases like this do serve to remind us that free speech does matter, and it is under constant threat. Annoying as a free press can be, it is a good deal better than the alternative. Putnam, William Lowell. John Peter Zenger and the Fundamental Freedom.

Jefferson, N. Kluger, Richard. New York: W. Olson, Alison. John R. John Peter Zenger [electronic resource]. Other articles in Americans prominently involved with First Amendment issues.

Want to support the Free Speech Center? Donate Now. John Peter Zenger. What is a media trial? It is the phenomenon of declaring an accused a convict before the court gives out its verdict.

While there is no denying the fact that the media enjoys the right to freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by the constitution under Article 19 1 this fundamental right like all the others rights is not absolute and is subjected to reasonable restrictions.

The Bombay High Court while hearing the suicide case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput noted that media trials obstruct the administration of justice and are violative of the programme code codified under the Cable Television Network Regulation Act. In the past as well, the judiciary has been critical of the media for taking over its jurisdiction. The objective of this fundamental right is to ensure a dignified life to every individual.

Media trials by compromising and tarnishing the reputation of the accused grossly violate their dignity. Such a practice clearly undermines the democratic values of a country.

This is not to suggest that the media has never had any positive impact. For instance, the Priyadarshani Mattoo case reached its climax only after intervention from the media.

The accused in the case Santosh Singh was an influential person who yielded significant power as the result of which the appeal in Delhi High Court against his acquittal kept hanging.

It was then that the media took matters into its hands and started a campaign against this delay in securing justice. Owing to this intervention, Santosh Singh was convicted in record 41 days and awarded death penalty.