This is exactly what it looks like. The police have confiscated the decoders from the cable operators and they in retaliation have blackened out all the channels. Where does that leave us consumers? We always get the short end of the stick in such situations. Almost everyone pays the annual subscription (in advance), so the cable operators are least bothered even if they don't provide the service for a few days. The police have made the cable operators the scapegoats to avoid the wrath of the judiciary. And the judiciary in its attempt to deliver justice had passed an order with no detailed instructions and specifications. The end result of all this is that its been snowing (at least on the television sets) in Mumbai from the past few days.
All this has thrust us back to the days when Doordarshan was the only channel available. What the judiciary seems to have overlooked is the fact that all television sets come with a remote or an alternate mechanism to change channels. God has been generous enough to bless mankind with the ability to make decisions and choose what is good and bad. If the lady who filed the public interest litigation is unable to control what her children watch then thats a problem she has to solve on her own (or other parents in such situations). Blackening out the entire entertainment channels is clearly not the answer.
What we watch on TV is our own concious decision. If a channel is screening adult films, then we do have the option of changing the channel (when else would an option of more than 100 channels come in handy) or switching it off. Nobody is forcing you to view such films or channels. Plus whatever happens is in the closed confines of one's house so why should anyone else be bothered about what goes on. The fact that such films are being screened clearly indicates that there is a demand from the viewers. Why infringe on their freedom just to hide your inability to deal with such reality?
All this has thrust us back to the days when Doordarshan was the only channel available. What the judiciary seems to have overlooked is the fact that all television sets come with a remote or an alternate mechanism to change channels. God has been generous enough to bless mankind with the ability to make decisions and choose what is good and bad. If the lady who filed the public interest litigation is unable to control what her children watch then thats a problem she has to solve on her own (or other parents in such situations). Blackening out the entire entertainment channels is clearly not the answer.
What we watch on TV is our own concious decision. If a channel is screening adult films, then we do have the option of changing the channel (when else would an option of more than 100 channels come in handy) or switching it off. Nobody is forcing you to view such films or channels. Plus whatever happens is in the closed confines of one's house so why should anyone else be bothered about what goes on. The fact that such films are being screened clearly indicates that there is a demand from the viewers. Why infringe on their freedom just to hide your inability to deal with such reality?
1 comment:
Exactly my point.
In fact the Law cannot do anything about something that you do in the confines of your home --- that's private, and can't be regulated.
With TV, there's the problem of public broadcast and private consumption.
And I guess, this is the Xavier's prof again?
Post a Comment