[ad_1]
The legal warnings of Bollywood actor, Kangana Ranaut, on Friday threatening criminal charges against the Entertainment Journalists' Guild and the Press Club of India they do not withdraw their decision to boycotting it, seem to be a simple tactic of intimidation, without much substance.
Journalists called the media to boycott the actor after a dispute with a reporter from the Press Trust of India at a promotional event for his upcoming film Judgmentall Hai Kya in Mumbai July 7th. [19659002] Ranaut reacts to this threat in a video published July 11 in social media . In the clip, the star describes the journalists as "traitors" and "termites", adding that part of the media was "pseudo-secular".
In a statement, the Press Club of India condemned its "uncivilized, uneducated, rude and abusive language against journalists". The Mumbai Press Club said it was not the first time that journalists were insulted by Ranaut and her sister, Rangoli Chandel, who was its manager. "This is now part of their unprofessional conduct," said the organization.
Is there a legal basis for Ranaut's opinion?
The notice has three key elements. First, journalists have violated the rules of the Press Council of India, which governs the conduct of working journalists. Secondly, the fact that the decision of the journalists' collectives to boycott the actress constitutes a violation of the Competition Act by denying her access to the markets. Third, the call to boycott is an offense of criminal intimidation punishable by a term of imprisonment.
Are these accusations true?
Missing substance
On July 11, in the video she posted on Twitter, Ranaut said she would not be intimidated by calls from some media reporters to boycott them. In a comment that seemed sarcastic, she said, "Please, forbid me because I do not want you to make money. This is the greatest favor you can give me.
But the next day, she chose to send a legal notification to the organizations, saying that a boycott was an unfair commercial practice.
Even a fortuitous reading of the notification shows that its decision to invoke some of the legal provisions cited is unfounded. For example, Article 4 of the Competition Act prohibits a "dominant" group or enterprise from imposing discriminatory conditions on other persons and from refusing or limiting market access.
Even by liberal standards, there is no way to think that the Entertainment Journalists Guild or the Press Club of India occupy a "dominant position" in the law-making media industry: [19659012] "Dominant" position "means a position of strength enjoyed by a company on the relevant market in India which allows it:
i) to operate independently of the competitive forces that prevail on the relevant market; or
(ii) affect its competitors, consumers or the relevant market in its favor.
Anyone who is even unfamiliar with Indian media knows that neither the Entertainment Journalists Guild nor the Press Club of India control the journalism or activities of media organizations. At most, they have a persuasive value. In fact, the communication recognizes that the Entertainment Journalists Guild is not even a registered organization and that the Press Club of India is only a meeting place for journalists.
There is no material evidence showing that the boycott appeal was launched. implemented by many media organizations. The last major public event of Ranaut was the press conference of July 7, intended to promote the film, largely covered. The Entertainment Journalists Guild has made it clear that it will not endanger the film in any way. Ironically, despite a call for a ban on covering Ranaut, the media covered in detail her unpleasant comments about the journalists and the advice she sent to the organizations.
Attempted intimidation
The charges in the notification suggest that the call for a conditional boycott of the actor amounts to criminal intimidation and extortion. The condition posed by the journalists was that Ranaut apologized for his humiliating speech bursts for the reporters.
To accuse these organizations of criminal intimidation when they have been content to exercise their democratic right to protest is intriguing. How can an organization that has been created for the welfare of entertainment journalists expect to remain silent if it thinks that a journalist, as well as all professionals, is targeted unfairly? If this is acceptable, many professional badociations, whether it be doctors or even lawyers, would find it impossible to act when their constituents would suffer unfair treatment .
Second, the guild is looking for excuses, not a monetary payment. Saying that asking for an excuse amounts to extortion pushes the boundaries of Article 383 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes the act.
In fact, it would appear that the statements made at the press conference and later in the video of Ranaut, a person in a strong position in the entertainment industry, were fueled by the intention to smother the critics. Using terms such as "termites" and "pseudo-secular" is clearly an attempt at intimidation.
Of course, the ethical question of whether a boycott is justifiable, especially when it comes to journalists, who once reacted strongly to attempts to ban on the part of certain political parties of certain press organs. Ideally, the media response should have been limited to a conviction.
But to convert that into a serious criminal charge is a legal absurdity.
[ad_2]
Source link
