वाक्-स्वतंत्रता पर चर्चा

तेरह भाषाएँ. दस सिद्धांत. एक वार्तालाप.

प्रवेश | पंजीकरण | मेलिंग की तालिका

Loading...
1हम सभी इंसानों को सीमाओं की परवाह करे बिना, अपनी भावनाओं को व्यक्त करने के लिए, और सूचना के आदान प्रदान के लिए पूरी तरह स्वतन्त्र और सक्षम होना चाहिए.»
2हमें इन्टरनेट और संचार के अन्य माध्यमो को निजी और सार्वजनिक शक्तियो के नाजायज़ अतिक्रमण से बचाना होगा.»
3हमें खुले और विविध संचार माध्यमो की आवश्यकता है ताकि हम सूचित निर्णय ले सकें और राजनैतिक जीवन में पूरी तरह भाग ले सकें.»
4हम सभी प्रकार के मानव अंतरो के बारे में खुलकर और सभ्यता के साथ बोलते हैं.»
5हम चर्चा और ज्ञान के प्रसार में कोई भी प्रतिबंधो की अनुमति नहीं देते»
6हम न तो हिंसा की धमकी देते हैं और न ही दूसरो से हिंसा की धमकी स्वीकार करते हैं.»
7हम हर आदमी का सम्मान करते हैं भले ही हम उनके हर विचार से सहमत न भी हो.»
8हम सब एक नीजी जीवन के हकदार है, पर जनहित में हमें किसी भी प्रकार की जांच के लिए तैयार रहना चाहिए.»
9हमें किसी भी मुद्दे पर बहस को संकुचित किये बगैर अपनी प्रतिष्ठा की रक्षा करने की क्षमता क्षमता होनी चाहिए.»
10हमें राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा, सार्वजनिक व्यवस्था और नैतिकता के आधार पे मुक्त अभिव्यक्ति पर लगायी गई सभी सीमाओं को चुनौती देने के लिए स्वतंत्र होना चाहिए.»

Misconceived? Impossible?

Challenge or comment on the project so far. Help us make it better. Suggest alternative approaches.

मुख्य (होम) | मामले का अध्ययन | Broadcasting a massacre

Broadcasting a massacre

In March 2012, self-proclaimed jihadist Mohammed Merah strapped a camera to his chest before killing seven people in France. Al-Jazeera TV channel opted not to show the footage, writes Jeff Howard.

Silent Walk In Tribute to The Victims Of Shooting In Jewish School
Paris, France – 19 March: Members of the Jewish community of Paris light candles on the Place de la Bastille as they take part in a silent walk in tribute to the victims of the shooting that took place in a school in Toulouse during a wake in Paris. Four people, including three children, were killed and others wounded after an armed man had opened fire in a Jewish school as parents were dropping their children off in the morning. (Photo by Franck Prevel/Getty Images)

उदहारण

Between 11 and 19 March 2012, a self-proclaimed jihadist and French citizen of Algerian dissent named Mohammed Merah killed seven people and injured five others in a series of attacks on French soldiers and Jewish schoolchildren in Montauban and Toulouse. On 22 March, after a protracted standoff, the French police killed Merah, who claimed to have been avenging Palestinian children and protesting France’s participation in wars on Muslims. Merah professed to have been an agent of al-Qaida, though it remains unclear whether he has ever had any official communication with terrorist organisations. A Pakistani branch of the Taliban claimed to have trained him.

Shortly after the attacks, the Arab media station Al-Jazeera received a video of the murders taken by Merah, who had a camera strapped to his chest during the shootings. Quranic verses and religious music overlaid the footage. Family members of victims requested that Al-Jazeera not air the footage, a plea reiterated by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who entreated: “I ask the managers of all television stations that might have these images not to broadcast them in any circumstances, out of respect for the victims – out of respect for the republic.” Al-Jazeera, citing its own code of ethics, decided to comply with the request, contending that the video added no new information – merely sounds of gunshots, screams, and the voices of the killer and his victims. Al-Jazeera’s code of ethics pledges that the organisation shall “[t]reat our audiences with due respect and address every issue or story with due attention to present a clear, factual and accurate picture while giving full consideration to the feelings of victims of crime, war, persecution and disaster, their relatives and our viewers, and to individual privacies and public decorum.”

लेखक की राय

There are two decisions in this case that flag the attention of free speech defenders: firstly, the decision by Sarkozy to pressure a news organisation into withholding material; and secondly, the decision of a news organisation to withhold such material on the grounds that it adds no new information and is disrespectful toward victims. Neither decision should be seen as an affront to free speech. Crucially, Sarkozy was not suggesting that the coercive powers of the law be marshalled to suppress the footage; that suggestion would rest in far greater tension with free speech principles. Rather, his exhortation rested of the simple idea that some exercises of free speech are wise and some exercises of free speech are unwise. He was, in order words, counselling the adoption of an ethic of free speech according to which private citizens and organisations ought to employ discretion in deciding when and how to use their legally protected freedoms.

Al-Jazeera’s decision embraced Sarkozy’s proposed ethic of free speech. Of course, there should always be a presumption among news organisations in favor of releasing, not withholding, material. Any argument underlying a news organisation’s decision to withhold material has to be an excellent one. While I believe this was a close call – as citizens have some interest in being able to see the video to help them appreciate the moral gravity of the situation – Al-Jazeera’s decision can be justified. Releasing the video would enter no fresh facts into the public discussion; rather, it would merely intensify the national trauma, upset families whose lives have been shattered, and potentially inspire copycats. Even if Merah were alive, he would have no rights under any free speech principle to broadcast footage of him violating others’ rights. The footage is not subjectively offensive to some oversensitive group; videos of murders are objectively offensive. The principles of free speech stem from the equal dignity of every individual. Watching individuals have their dignity destroyed in the most fundamental way possible is not an activity plausibly protected by such principles.

- Jeff Howard
छापें सहेजें
पर प्रकाशित: अप्रैल 2, 2012 | 2 टिप्पणियाँ

टिप्पणियाँ (2)

Google अनुवाद द्वारा स्वचालित मशीन अनुवाद प्रदान किया जाता हैं. यह आपको बताता है की योगदानकर्ता क्या कहना चाहता हैं, लेकिन इसका एक सटीक, सूक्ष्म अनुवाद की तरह भरोसा न करें.

  1. carlotatocino कहो

    From my personal point of view, i think that the omision of the footage was a totally right decision.
    First of all i am totally agree about citizens getting freedom of speech and the most accurate information possible about anything that is relevant to anybody. But on the other hand, i think that the murder has been cover very good, as all the details have been explain. Furthermore, the information about the arrest and death of the terrorist has been covered very accuretaly.
    Why i am against the diffusion of the video? First of all, most of the victims are kids, by this i mean that they are underage, therefore under the responsability of the parents. And which mother/father wants to recreate and live again the death of their kid? I think that it is not necessary and image or sound in this case. With some written information is enough.
    Secondly, i think that the video could be a source of “Inspiration” for other terrorist attacks, and therefore i think we don’t need to do more publicity about the terrorist attack. Because everybody knows that positive/negative publicity is the best way to get known and increase the followers.
    Finally, i think that besides those ideas, in order to respect the victims, it should be somehting private, for respecting their privacy and honor.
    In conclusion, it was an excellent idea to ban the video, and i don’t see that the political pressure was something negative, at this moment i think it was an act showing respect for the victims. Sometimes is better to avoid information, because it is not going to add more details, but just some macabracy.

  2. Joe College कहो

    To the author opinion, it is patently wrong to describe murder as “objectively offensive”. One need only look as far as the glorification of violence in nearly all commercial media to see this. It is not only depictions of it that are popular; real life footage is hungrily devoured by voyeuristic viewers as well. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsA9VtQ_uLg

    The video has over 1,000,000 views, and an overwhelming “like” ratio. Why is it allowed? Is it because the victims are little white blobs? Is it because we cannot see their faces? They are the “bad guys” getting “what they deserve”?

    This, to me, is far more disrespectful of identity and individualism than broadcasting murders. Picking and choosing which individual deserves respect undermines the entire argument to an extreme degree.

    Perhaps the video related to the case study should not be aired on public television. Perhaps it should not be made available. But the reasoning behind this is inherently hypocritical, and disgusting at that.

अपनी भाषा में टिप्पणी दीजिये


'वाक्-स्वतंत्रता पर चर्चा' ऑक्सफोर्ड विश्वविद्यालय के सेंट एंटनी कॉलेज में स्वतंत्रता के अध्ययन पर आधारित दह्रेंदोर्फ़ कार्यक्रम के अंतर्गत एक अनुसन्धान परियोजना है. www.freespeechdebate.com