tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12808776.post111760098850764715..comments2023-06-14T15:04:38.420+05:30Comments on Saara Aakash: Smoke and mirrorsNikhil Prasad Ojhahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16038541283659597985noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12808776.post-45828594649997147982020-08-19T14:41:59.559+05:302020-08-19T14:41:59.559+05:30Very InterestingVery InterestingTelemarketing Softwarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04038639582203488564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12808776.post-1118213222744146802005-06-08T12:17:00.000+05:302005-06-08T12:17:00.000+05:30Consider separating out public broadcast media, su...Consider separating out public broadcast media, such as television, from your analysis -- nations committed to robust protection of speech routinely grant their governments greater regulatory latitude with respect to such media. Your speech-related objection is far stronger in the realm of cinema and print, which requires payment other affirmative action to enjoy, and where content regulation would leave absolutely no avenue through which creative minds can depict the activity of smoking -- which, whatever one's thoughts on the practice, is an important part of the larger world that both artistic and political discourse seek to engage.<BR/><BR/>Constitutional issues of free speech aside, I would argue the true breakdown here appears to have taken place at the level of administrative decision-making processes (or utter lack thereof). Successive Indian governments exhibit a penchant for regulation that is either so half-baked as to accomplish nothing, or such overkill as to preclude realistic enforcement. What we see here is of the latter variety, and likely the result of a couple of bureaucrats or ministers cooking up some rules in isolation and throwing it out there for all others to accept.<BR/><BR/>By contrast, broader-based decision-making processes, into which the widest possible array of interest groups offer their inputs, tend to produce regulation more tightly callibrated against the desired ends (in terms of legal analysis, this cigarette rule could be considered <I>grossly</I> "over-inclusive." My basic point, then, goes not to whether depiction of smoking on TV should be blurred out (I consider cinema to be hands-off), but to the fact that a mature political system can pick any of several reasonable policy alternatives, including such blurring; in India's case, our focus for now should be less on the content outcome of the regulation, and more on regulatory process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12808776.post-1117793618704469862005-06-03T15:43:00.000+05:302005-06-03T15:43:00.000+05:30Well, well, well. The bureaucracy shall never ceas...Well, well, well. The bureaucracy shall never cease to be holier than thou. If smoking and alcohol are such damned vices why not ban ‘PRODUCTION and SALE’ of tobacco, cigarettes and liquor in the first place- and be prepared to forego crores of rupees of revenue in the form of taxes that this “vicious” industry provides the government-?<BR/><BR/>Why stop at smoking? Why not ban the depiction of rape , violence , any form of crime and titillation in movies and other “visual media”? Why not ban the “objectification” of women and depiction of women in “distasteful and demeaning ” forms in various advertisements? What about corruption, bribery and blackmail? Are all of these not capable of hurting young and impressionable minds or even the general populace ? Why stop at smoking alone?<BR/><BR/>If there ever was an Oscar for double standards, then surely this imposition deserves it. Wake up Govt. of India. There’s a lot more happening out there, right under your nose, which deserves much greater attention and regulation. There is a lot of rot within the govt. machinery that needs to be fixed first. For a change-Practice what you Preach- First.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com