Homosexuality Taboo in Indian society

The word Homosexuality its self is a taboo in Indian society but still there are many people who are Homosexuals. If we look in the history itself from the ancient time we can see the element of love between same sexes. Even in Puran it’s written that lord Shiva and Vishnu had a child who is Ayyapa. And even in many traditional places we can see the carvings of Homosexuals and all this is not new to Indians they know everything about the face behind Homosexuals but the only problem is that they are not ready to accept it.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which was passed in the year 2009 gave a big relief to that entire special people around India. After this 377 act was passed the attitudes towards homosexuality have shifted slightly. In particular, there have been more depictions and discussions of homosexuality in the Indian news media and by Bollywood. Several organizations, including the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, the National AIDS Control Organization,  Law Commission of India, Union Health Ministry,  National Human Rights Commission  and The Planning Commission of India and many more public people came together to discuses and while some came up with the unethical part of  Homophobia and the ill effects in the Indian Culture. But still after so many clubbing of different social bugs nothing resulted a proper statistics till today. In between all such situation helpless people are grinding their feeling and emotions.

11 December 2013 was one of the thundering day for all the Special people as the right of 377 was now changed to an criminal offence after the Supreme court decriminalized the approval for 377 as a right. Telling that “Section 377- Unnatural offences : Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, women or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall be liable to fine. ” If we read the above mentioned law then we can easily sort out that they are trying to explore that particular kind of people who are not doing any kind of illegal activities, still all the nation is targeting them.

India has the constitution which speaks about the human rights on one side and on the side they are just not following their own laws. The main problem is created by the Indian people who believe that if 377 is passed totally then it will be threat to the Indian culture and society. The law and order in India some were deals with the cultural thoughts of Indian culture which says that gay rights are totally unethical In nature so there should be no freedom for the gay peoples to choose their own life partner. If we think socially then all the people around are trying to exploit this community in the name of law, cast, religion and manners of India.

The generation is changing everyone in and around is educated but still they are shape up in such a manner that they also believe in what their culture says. In one of the other way culture has a great impact on every once life. It simply says that there is no proper law for gay peoples to live their life in the way they want.

Opinion: Legal and ethical issues for televising and tweeting court – Judith Townend

I have copy Pasted this blog because it is reliable to MEDIA LAWS.

Tweeting
We are long used to abridged sensitive or traumatic information in broadcast soundbites and scrolling news tickers, but court tweeting is still in its infancy as a medium, and can feel more intimate and immediate.

The dominant “#spook” Twitter hashtag used by the major news organisations tweeting the Gareth Williams inquest seemed almost flippant in tone on Monday morning, although no more so than ‘spy in a bag’ headlines.

The Norwegian trial of Anders Breivik for the murder of 77 people has also brought the live-tweeting question to the fore. Cameras were banned from filming Breivik’s testimony for fear of losing context but as Daniel Bennett observed last week, “tweeting [Anders] Breivik’s evidence inevitably strips away even more context from it“.

He drew attention to the approach taken by journalists at the Breivik trial and the Guardian’s Helen Pidd, who said: “I’m not tweeting all of Breivik’s statement because some of what he is saying is too heartless“. The Norwegian example was also explored in this thorough piece on Journalism.co.uk and a comment by the Guardian’s Readers’ Editor, Chris Elliott.

While the legal and ethical approach to court reporting are connected, the two are not necessary mutual: a journalist may choose to withhold certain information on ethical grounds, even if it is legally permitted to publish. Pidd chose to save some information for her reports, so she could add further context. Additionally, she decided not to tweet anything which she “wouldn’t put in the conventional stories [she] write[s] about the trial each morning and afternoon”.

Broadcasting
Journalists could of course exercise the same discretion when selecting broadcast material, but the focus to date has been whether the media should be able to film at all in the English and Welsh courts.

Last week STV declared what is thought to be a legal first for TV News in Scotland (and the UK): it was permitted to film the sentencing remarks in a criminal trial for murder. The footage was shown online and shared with other broadcasters.

The announcement brought the ‘cameras in court’ debate back on the news agenda and it is likely to remain so in May; it is reported that the justice secretary’s plans for cameras in court (restricted to the judge’s summing up and sentencing) will be included in the Queen’s Speech.

Penny Marshall, social affairs editor for ITV News reflected recently (in a piece praising the court sketcher) that it is hoped televising court “will change the way justice is seen to be done and open one of the last bastions of privacy to public scrutiny”. In her view, “there are some reservations about how the scheme will actually work, but few real opponents“. Opponents can be found, however, especially regarding the filming of witness evidence in criminal trials.

Cameras appear to have been successfully used in the UK Supreme Court, but of course the concerns of the lower courts do not apply: no juries, witnesses or cross-examinations, as the UKSC’s deputy head of communications pointed out in a comment for PR Week.

SC opens list to new ‘friends of the court’ (but won’t be exclusive)

I have copy Pasted this blog because it is reliable to MEDIA LAWS.

The Supreme Court has opened up its panel of lawyers eligible to be selected as amicus curiae (Latin for “friend of the court”), to assist the judges from time to time in matters.

According to a notification released by the Supreme Court today, advocates applying for the list must have a minimum “standing at the bar” of 10 years, and need to complete application forms A and B [available here (PDF)] by 5 March 2014.

Advocates need to specify when and where they were enrolled and where they have practised for the last two years and the period for which they have ever acted as amicus before.

According to the notice, 17 senior counsel, 238 advocates-on-record (AOR), and 243 advocates who are not AORs are currently empanelled. Those names will automatically be considered for re-appointment alongside the new applicants, unless they request to be taken off the panel.

The next round of empanelment will happen in two years on 31 March 2016.

Amicus are generally selected by the bench to assist the court as independent advisers, usually in complicated or sensitive matters.

It is understood that the court regularly selects amici who are not empanelled, though those on the list may get preference occasionally.

For example, in the public interest litigation filed by an anonymous intern against the apex court and Swatanter Kumar, over sexual harassment allegations, the bench appointed PP Rao and Fali Nariman as amici, neither of whom are empanelled according to the list.