Media law in the United States

United States regulates the delivery of television and audio radio signals differently depending on how
those signals reach the end user. Broadcast television in the United States refers only to the delivery of
signals over the air directly to a television. Cable television refers to the delivery of signals to a television
through a terrestrial ‘cable system’ with distinct rules from those governing over-the-air television.
Direct-to-home satellite refers to the delivery of signals to a television through the use of a satellite
antenna and is subject to yet another set of rules. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also
classifies cable, satellite and similar providers as ‘multichannel video programming distributors’ (MVPDs)
and subjects them as such to additional rules. ‘Over-the-top’ (OTT) delivery refers to the delivery of
video programming over the internet. On the audio side, broadcast radio refers to the delivery of audio
signals over the air, while satellite digital audio radio service refers to the delivery of audio signals over
satellite. Our responses to questions about ‘broadcasting’ in this chapter refer to all of these types of
delivery.

Television stations now transmit in a digital format called ATSC 1.0. The FCC recently granted them
authority to transmit in a new digital format, ATSC 3.0, which will permit them much greater flexibility in
the content and services they provide. Television stations will thus have considerable leeway to offer
additional services subject to little or no regulation.

OTT video and audio delivery has not been definitively addressed by the FCC, and efforts for it to do so
appear stalled. The FCC previously proposed to classify such providers as MVPDs, subjecting them to
some (but not all) rules that now apply to cable and satellite providers. Action on this item, however, is
unlikely, leaving OTT services largely unregulated for the time being. OTT delivery is also subject to
copyright rules, with disputes pending or recently resolved before several courts. Congress may address
this issue when it considers reauthorisation of expiring satellite television legislation at the end of this
year.

Freedom of presss

The FCC does not regulate the delivery of audio or video services to mobile devices as broadcasting,
although US copyright laws apply. As such delivery becomes more common, however, the FCC is likely to
increase its regulation of such services. For example, the FCC now requires programming delivered to
most mobile devices to be close-captioned and has begun to require such devices to decode and render
such captioning.

Freedom of the press is a fundamental liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
As such, courts and legislative bodies have been hesitant to infringe upon the freedom of press. In fact,
there are numerous state and federal statutes that seek to protect the freedom of the press, such as the
Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The freedom of the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment. As with all Constitutional
Amendments, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government—not to the states—when it
was first ratified. The Constitutional Amendments needed to be incorporated against the states by the
U.S. Supreme Court in order to apply to the states. The freedom of the press, along with the freedom of
speech, was incorporated in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925): “[F]reedom of speech and of the
press which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress are among the
fundamental personal rights and “liberties” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment from impairment by the States.”

(1) National Security and Freedom of the Press

In New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), “the Nixon Administration attempted to
prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified
Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam.” The Nixon
Administration claimed that releasing the documents would jeopardize national security. The Supreme
Court found that there is a heavy presumption against prior restraint of the press, and that the
respondent's (here, the United States) vague use of the word "security" is not enough to overcome the
importance of the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment.

(2) Censorship of a School Newspaper

In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), the Supreme Court held that a school
may exercise prior restraint against student publications. Schools may refuse to endorse speech, as long
as the school’s actions are “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

(3) Compelling Reporters to Testify

“Reporters’ privilege” refers to the idea that a reporter is protected under either statutory or
constitutional law from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources. In
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Supreme Court held that when a reporter is asked to testify
under oath in front of a grand jury, the reporter may not invoke “reporters’ privilege.” As such,
“reporters’ privilege” is not protected under the First Amendment when the reporter is asked to testify
in front of a grand jury. The Court held that if asked to testify in court under oath to a grand jury, a
reporter may not invoke “reporters’ privilege.”

(4) Communications Regulations & Prior Restraint

When a government seeks to regulate communications, courts must balance the interests of freedom of
expression with the government’s desire to protect its citizens from harm.The doctrine of prior restraint
is usually invoked when this issue comes up. Prior restraint refers to when the government reviews
materials to determine whether publication of the material is allowed.

In Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), the Supreme Court determined that it is unconstitutional to
exercise prior restraint with regard to print publications: “It is plain, then, that the language of this
amendment imports no more than that every man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his
opinions upon any subject whatsoever, without any prior restraint, so always that he does not injure any
other person in his rights, person, property, or reputation, and so always that he does not thereby
disturb the public peace or attempt to subvert the government. It is neither more nor less than an
expansion of the great doctrine recently brought into operation in the law of libel, that every man shall
be at liberty to publish what is true, with good motives and for justifiable ends. And, with this
reasonable limitation, it is not only right in itself, but it is an inestimable privilege in a free government.”

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and foreign communications by
radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. It was created by the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
151 et seq.) to regulate interstate and foreign communications by wire and radio in the public interest.

In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), the Supreme Court defined the scope of the FCC’s
power with in relation to sanctioning television programs for airing certain content, such as vulgar
language. The Court held that the FCC may censor television content, based on relevant factors such as
time of day, the program’s overall content, the audience, the medium, and the method of transmission
of the message.

In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 567 US __ (2012), the Supreme Court further defined FCC rules dealing
with vulgar content on television programs. To determine which type of content is offensive, the FCC
had a policy outlining 3 main factors:

“(1) [T]he explicitness or graphic nature of the description or depiction of sexual or excretory organs or
activities;

(2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions of sexual or excretory organs or
activities;

(3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate, or whether the material appears to
have been presented for its shock value.”

The Supreme Court held that in order to actually enforce the policy, however, the FCC must give the
networks fair warning, prior to the broadcasting of offensive content. Without warning networks of the
policy, any enforcements are considered vague, and must be set aside. The Court, however, did not
evaluate whether the actual policy violated the First Amendment, the Court only ruled regarding its
enforcement.

Federal Regulatory Bureaus

Different branches of the media are regulated by different bureaus. The Media Bureau regulates
amplitude and frequency modulation, low-power television, direct broadcast satellite, and regulates
cable television. The Wireline Competition Bureau regulates telephone and cable facilities. The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau administers all domestic commercial and private wireless
telecommunications programs and policies. The International Bureau manages all international
programs. In a sweeping overhaul of the Communications Act of 1934, Congress enacted the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 51 et seq.). Its goal was to deregulate the industry and
encourage competition.

The growth of the Internet and digital media more generally have begun to blur the boundaries between
media segments. In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to deal with
Internet issues and the advanced technologies used to bypass copy protection devices.

Freedom of Press in USA:

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has expressly recognised the freedom of press.

In the United States, the government may not prevent the publication of a newspaper, even when there
is reason to believe that it is about to reveal information that will endanger national security. By the
same principle, the government cannot:

Pass a law that requires newspapers to publish information against their will.

Impose criminal penalties, or civil damages, on the publication of truthful information about a matter of
public concern or even on the dissemination of false and damaging information about a public person
except in rare instances.

Impose taxes on the press that it does not levy on other businesses.

Compel journalists to reveal, in most circumstances, the identities of their sources.

Prohibit the press from attending judicial proceedings and thereafter informing the public about them.

The above defined bundle of rights was largely developed by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, defines the
�freedom of the press� guaranteed by the First Amendment

In Lowell vs. Griffin (1938) the US court has observed that the freedom of press is not confined to
newspapers and periodicals, but it includes also pamphlets and circulars and every sort of publication
which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.
File Copyright Online – File mutual Divorce in Delhi – Online Legal Advice – Lawyers in India

Comparison of Indian and American Freedom of Press

By Nishka Prajapati | Views 20449

1 0 2 Blogger0 whatsapp9 pocket2 Digg0

2 To preserve the democratic way of life it is essential that people should have the freedom to
express their feelings and to make their views known to the people at large. The press, a powerful
medium of mass communication, should be free to play its role in building a strong viable society.
Denial of freedom of the press to citizens would necessarily undermine the power to influence
public opinion and be counter to democracy.

Freedom of Press has been recognised in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948;
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976 as well as article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

Freedom of press is not specifically mentioned in article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India and what is
mentioned there is only freedom of speech and expression. In the Constituent Assembly Debates it was
made clear by Dr. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, that no special mention of the
freedom of press was necessary at all as the press and an individual or a citizen were the same as far as
their right of expression was concerned.

The framers of the Indian constitution considered freedom of the press as an essential part of the
freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The freedom
includes the right to express one�s conviction and opinions freely, by word of mouth, writing, printing,
picture or electronic media or in any other manner.

It is clear that the right to freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to publish and
circulate one�s ideas, opinions and other views with complete freedom and by resorting to all available
means of publication. The right to freedom of the press includes the right to propagate ideas and views
and to publish and circulate them. However, the freedom of the press is not absolute, just as the
freedom of expression is not.

Public Interest has to be safeguard by article 19(1)(2) which lays down reasonable limitations to the
freedom of expression in matters affecting:

Sovereignty and integrity of the State

Security of the State

Friendly relations with foreign countries

Public order

Decency and morality

Contempt of court

Defamation

Incitement to an offence

View of Supreme Court on Freedom of Press:

In Ramesh Thapar vs. State of Madras (1950) entry and circulation of the English journal �Cross
Road�, printed and published in Bombay, was banned by the Government of Madras. The SC held that
the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas which freedom is
ensured by the freedom of circulation of a publication, for which circulation, the publication would be of
little value. The SC therefore held that a ban authorizing the Government to impose a ban upon entry
and circulation of a journal in a State, is restrictive of freedom of speech and expression and it can be
valid till it falls within Article.

In Prabhu Dutt vs. UOI (1982) the SC has held that the right to know news and information regarding
administration of the governments is included in the freedom of press. But this right is not absolute and
restrictions can be imposed on it in the interest of society and the individual from which the press
obtains the information. They can obtain information from an individual when he voluntarily agrees to
give such information. In this case the court directed the superintendent of the Tihar Jail to permit the
Chief Reporter of the Hindustan Times Newspaper to interview Ranga and Billa, the two death
sentenced convicts, under Article 19(1)(a) as they were willing to be interviewed.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MEDIA LEGISLATION AND FREEDOM OF MEDIA IN USA AND INDIA

Issues relating to Freedom of Press IN INDIA

Some of the issues relating to the freedom of press and the views taken by the apex court relating to
them are as follows:

Fixation of Maximum Pages:

In Bennet Coleman Co. vs. UOI (1973) the validity of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962 which fixed the
maximum number of pages at 10 which a newspaper could publish was challenged as violative of
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution. The court has
held that the Government can make a fair and equitable allotment of the available newsprint to the
newspapers but once the allotments are made newspapers must be left free to determine how they will
adjust their newsprint. Hence it has been made clear that the fixation of maximum number of pages of
newspapers by the Government is against the freedom of press guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).

Fixation of minimum price according to number of pages:

In Sakal Paper Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1962) an order which fixed a minimum price and number of pages
which a newspaper was entitled to publish was challenged as unconstitutional on the ground that it
infringed the liberty of press guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). the court has made it clear that the only
restrictions which may be imposed on this right are those which clause (2) of Article 19 permits.
Accordingly the court has held that fixing fixed a minimum price and number of pages which a
newspaper was entitled to publish was unconstitutional as being in violation of Article 19(1)(a).

Levy of duty or tax on Newspaper Industry:

In Indian Express Newspaper vs. UOI (1985) the petitioner challenged the imposition of import duty and
the levy of auxiliary duty on the newsprint on the ground of infringement of the freedom of press as it
imposed a burden beyond the capacity of the industry and also affects the circulation of the newspapers
and periodicals. The SC has held that the newspaper has no immunity from general laws like taxation or
labour laws. The levy of duty or tax on the newspaper industry will be valid if it is within reasonable
limit.

Regulation of conditions of service of workmen in Newspaper Industry:

In Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. UOI (1958) the validity of the regulation of conditions of service of
workmen in newspaper industry through Working Journalists Act, 1955 was challenged. The court has
held that the object of the Act was the amelioration of the conditions of the workmen in the newspaper
industry. The court has made it clear that the press has no immunity from general laws like taxation or
industrial laws consequently, the court has held that the act is valid.

Commercial Advertisement:

In Hindustan Times vs. State of UP (2003) it has been held that advertisement has direct nexus with
circulation and revenue of newspaper and therefore the Government cannot impose an unjust condition
in the matter of release of advertisements.

Pre-censorship:

Imposition of pre-censorship on a journal or newspaper previous to its publications is a restriction on

the freedom of press and will amount to an infringement of the freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). However, the pre-censorship may be valid if it can be justified on any
ground of reasonable restriction permitted by Article 19(2).
In Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. UOI (1958) the SC held that a law which imposes pre-censorship or
curtails the circulation or prevents from being started or require the Government to seek Government
aid in order to survive was violative of Article 19(1)(a).

Freedom of Press in USA:

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has expressly recognised the freedom of press.

In the United States, the government may not prevent the publication of a newspaper, even when there
is reason to believe that it is about to reveal information that will endanger national security. By the
same principle, the government cannot:

Pass a law that requires newspapers to publish information against their will.

Impose criminal penalties, or civil damages, on the publication of truthful information about a matter of
public concern or even on the dissemination of false and damaging information about a public person
except in rare instances.

Impose taxes on the press that it does not levy on other businesses.

Compel journalists to reveal, in most circumstances, the identities of their sources.

Prohibit the press from attending judicial proceedings and thereafter informing the public about them.

The above defined bundle of rights was largely developed by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, defines the
�freedom of the press� guaranteed by the First Amendment

In Lowell vs. Griffin (1938) the US court has observed that the freedom of press is not confined to
newspapers and periodicals, but it includes also pamphlets and circulars and every sort of publication
which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.

Analysis of Indian and American legal systems for media legislation and freedom of media

Two great democracies of the modern world, America and India doing poetic justice has recognized the
right of freedom of speech and expression which extends to the freedom of the Press. The provision
with regard to this freedom is quite similar in both legal systems, that being said, the freedom of the
Press in the US constitution has two positive features, that is:

Freedom of press is specifically mentioned therein,

No restrictions are mentioned on the freedom of speech.

With respect to India, the Apex Court of India has held that there is no specific provision ensuring
freedom of the press separately but this freedom of the press is regarded as a �species of which
freedom of expression is a genus�.

Therefore, press cannot be subjected to any special restrictions which could not be imposed on any
private citizen, and cannot claim any privilege (unless conferred specifically by law), as such, as distinct
from those of any other citizen.

Despite similarities in their constitutional provisions, the United States and India have their own
distinctive jurisprudence on freedom of speech. To add to that, they also differ in what actually includes
and is accepted as free speech.

The premier difference among the systems is the extent of the freedom, the US legal system gives the
Press absolute freedom whereas in India is more of a right which extends to certain levels and the
restrictions are well defined. This difference is attributable to the reasonable restrictions provision and
the moral standard of the communities. India has progressed from an authoritarian system of control
and is now attempting a legislative model of control, quite similar to that of the United States.

The consequence of the extent of the Freedom in the US constitution is that ideas or expression which
may be offensive or hurtful or even racial can be expressed freely. The constitutional guarantee of
freedom of expression under the First Amendment then means freedom of expression in the fullest
sense.

Whereas the freedom of press in the Indian Constitution is subject to the restrictions stated in Article
19(2). Although the Constitution shows has no special provision to safeguard the rights of the press, the
Indian Judiciary has taken up the role and confirmed that the rights of the press are implicit in the
guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

In fact, multiple judgments of the Supreme Court of India have struck down laws that abridge the
freedom of the press and have echoed the sentiment expressed in the First Amendment of the US
constitution.

In Brij Bhushan vs. State of Delhi (1950) the SC has observed that the fundamental freedom of speech
and expression enshrined in our constitution was based on the provisions to the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the USA.
Media law in the United Kingdom
Media content regulation in the UK revolves primarily
around codes of
Practice, drawn up by a variety of bodies which are either
entirely or largely
Independent, following wide public consultation. In some
cases, these codes
Of practice have been developed by bodies with
statutory powers over the
Media while in others the responsible bodies have been
established by the
Media or journalists themselves. It is the purpose of this
paper to describe the
Various codes of practice which are applied to the media,
as well as the
Systems for promoting adherence to these codes.
In addition to the codes noted above, the
broadcast media are also subject to A small number of
specific content rules and all media are subject to laws of
General application, such as those relating to
defamation, obscenity and hate Speech. This paper will
not deal in any detail with these topics. This paper will
Also not deal with the whole question of ethical codes,
drawn up by journalists’ Associations and applicable to
individual journalists as a professional matter.
The print media is entirely self-regulating in the United
Kingdom and operates Free of any specific statutory
rules. The profession has established the Press
Complaints Commission on its own initiative, and this
body has developed a Code against which to measure
journalistic standards. For the broadcast Media, two
broadcasting acts set out broad categories of material
which Should be covered by codes of conduct but leave
detailed elaboration of these Categories to regulatory
bodies. These acts provide for the establishment of
Various independent regulatory bodies which undertake
a variety of roles vis-À-vis broadcasters, including
monitoring and applying the codes.
The various codes of conduct in place in the
UK1Generally provide guidelines For media
professionals, rather than setting clear prohibitions on
specific types Of content. They represent an attempt to
provide some guidance to the media Recognising,
however, that the world is almost infinitely complex and
that it is Simply not possible to provide clear rules about
what is and what is not Allowed in all situations. A variety
of competing interests will generally be in Play, including
the public’s right to know, the practical realities of life in
the Media, particularly the need to publish in a timely
fashion, and various private Interests, such as privacy.
The need to balance these competing interests means
that the various codes Draw heavily on constantly
evolving “community standards” and the concept of The
“public interest”. The guidelines are not laws and, to a
significant extent, Their proper application depends upon
the media maintaining constant Awareness of the
prevailing public “mood”, or community standards as
broadly Reflected in the codes. This allows them to be
flexible and to give the media some scope to decide for
themselves how to approach necessarily difficultFor
these reasons, the codes are almost inherently vague and
there is consequently a great deal of scope for varying
interpretation and application in
practice. This means that regulatory and standard-setting
bodies have considerable leeway when measuring the
performance of the media against
the standards in the codes. This places a heavy onus
upon these bodies who must, on the one hand, decide
whether to uphold complaints from the public and, on
the other, be fair and clear in their dealings with the
media.
The Print Media
In the United Kingdom, the print media is essentially self-
regulating. There is no statutory Press Council, no
statutory complaints body and no requirement that
journalists be registered or belong to any particular
association. There is, however, a body established by
newspaper bodies themselves, the Press Complaints
Commission.
During the 1980’s there were a number of public
complaints about perceived excesses in the British press
and the British Government responded by setting up a
public enquiry into press regulation which reported in
1990. The enquiry recommended the establishment of a
new voluntary body to regulate
the press (to replace an existing body widely seen as
discredited and ineffective) which would be given a
limited time to prove its efficacy. If it were not able to
establish high standards of ethical journalism within that
time, statutory Press Council was to be established.
In response to this proposal, and in order to avoid the
creation of a statutory council, a committee of editors of
various press organs met and set up the Press
Complaints Commission in early 1991. A Code of Practice
for the press was drawn up by the committee of editors
and all British editors and publishers committed
themselves to upholding the code. A levy on newspapers
and periodicals was established to fund the PCC and it
was established that a majority of those on the PCC
would be lay people. The main purposes envisaged for
the PCC were to set high standards for the practice of
press journalism, to disseminate and promote those
standards, including through the training of journalists,
to receive complaints against press organs and
adjudicate on them, and generally to ensure that the
highest standards of journalism are upheld by the British
press. Membership of the PCC is formally voluntary,
although in practice all major newspapers are members.
The PCC began receiving complaints and issuing
guidelines on specific matters almost immediately and
has continued to do so to the present day. Since it was
originally adopted, there have been various revisions in
structure and numerous updates to the Code of Practice.
These changes are made by the industry's Code of
Practice Committee, which consists of senior editors
from across the newspaper and magazine publishing
industry The current Code of Practice contains 16 articles
dealing with a wide range of issues, including accuracy,
privacy, harassment, intrusion, children, listening
devices, discrimination, confidential sources and
payment for articles. Seven of these articles are subject
to a public interest “override” whereby the stated rule
may be overcome or modified where it is in the public
interest to do so, taking into account all the
circumstances.The application of the public interest
override necessarily leaves a wide scope to the PCC when
interpreting the Code.
Anyone can make a complaint to the PCC alleging breach
by a newspaper or magazine of the Code. Complaints are
free and do not require legal representation. According
to the PCC, most complaints are dealt with quickly and
are resolved to the satisfaction of the complainants. The
complaint procedure is governed by a “complainants
charter” against which satisfaction of complainants can
be measured. The only ‘sanction’ for breach of the code
is a requirement that the offending newspaper publish
the findings of the PCC.
Even this mild sanction has proved too much for some
newspapers and, over the years, a number of
newspapers have withdrawn from the PCC in protest
against one of its findings. These rebel newspapers have
all, in due course, rejoined the PCC.
From 1991 to 1998 the PCC received between 1500 and
3000 complaints each year. The vast majority of these
were conciliated in some way without the need for
formal arbitration by the PCC. Of those complaints which
were formally adjudicated, a significant number were
upheld (45 out of 86 in 1998). According to the PCC, in
every case where a complaint was upheld in 1998, the
press organ concerned published the PCC’s findings in a
position of reasonable prominence. The most common
complaints in 1998 (the last year For which an annual
review is currently available) related to allegations of
inaccuracy and a failure to grant a right of reply. Alleged
invasions of privacy and inappropriate depiction of
children were common and allegations of discrimination
and harassment were also significant.
During the course of 1998 and 1999 the PCC dealt with a
number of high profile complaints. These cases involved
claims based on the public interest, which was invoked to
justify behaviour that would otherwise have breached
the Code. They therefore illustrate some of the factors
the PCC takes into account when undertaking public
interest balancing under the Code of the conduct .
One very high profile case involved payments by a
newspaper to Louis a British nanny convicted in the USA
of killing the baby she was looking after. The Code of
Practice forbids payments to witnesses or criminals,
subject to a public interest override. The newspaper
argued that the payment had allowed new information
to be published and was, therefore, in the public interest.
This was particularly so given the widespread revulsion
the trial had caused in Britain and the campaign being
run by the newspaper to overturn the conviction. The
PCC took four factors particularly into account in finding
that the payments were, taking into account all the
circumstances, acceptable and that there had been no
breach of the code. First, the newspaper had clearly
considered the public interest aspect of the case before
making the payment. Second, the timing of the payment
meant the information published might actually have
affected the outcome of the case. Third, the matter was
clearly one of high public interest. Fourth, the payment
was necessary, given the financial plight of the
Woodwards.
In another high profile case, the Prime Minister, Tony
Blair, and his wife complained about a story which they
claimed was misleading and intruded into the private life
of their daughter. A newspaper had published allegations
that the Blairs’ daughter had gained a place at a popular
local high school through preferential treatment. The
newspaper claimed it was legitimate to publish the
allegation in the public interest because of the Prime
Minister’s hypocrisy in making choices for his family
which ran contrary to his government’s policy. The PCC
upheld the complaint on two grounds. First, they held
that the allegations were unfounded and that the
newspaper had adduced no evidence to prove them.
Second, the PCC held that there was no need to
specifically identify the daughter although it is rather
difficult to imagine how the story might otherwise have
been framed. There would appear to be a high degree of
public awareness about the PCC and, despite its lack of
legally enforceable remedies, it claims some success in
addressing cases where the media clearly oversteps
legitimate boundaries.
The Labour party, which came to power in the UK in
1997, has pledged its support for the PCC and the
possibility of the creation of a statutory press council has
now significantly receded.
Broadcasting Content Regulation
Unlike the press, broadcasting regulation in the UK is
based on statute and is relatively complex. Private
television and radio are regulated, respectively, by the
Independent Television Commission (ITC) and the Radio
Authority (RA), both provided for in the Broadcasting Act
1990.
These bodies have broad licensing powers and the
governing statute requires them to establish certain
codes to which licensees must conform. They also have
broad powers to sanction broadcasters who breach
license conditions, including through suspension or
revocation of licenses. The British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC), a public service broadcaster, is not
subject to ITC licensing, and has instead established an
internal system for processing complaints. All
broadcasters – public and private, radio and television –
are subject to the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting
Standards Commission (BSC). The BSC has a broad
mandate to undertake standard setting including through
developing codes of conduct and by entertaining
complaints from members of the public.
Standard Setting for all Broadcasters
The Broadcasting Act 1996 established the Broadcasting
Standards Commission (BSC), with a mandate over all
broadcasters, including the BBC And private
broadcasters. The BSC has three main functions:
(1)producing codes of conduct relating to fairness,
privacy and standards;
(2) monitoring, conducting research and compiling
reports on standards and
Fairness in UK broadcasting; and
(3) receiving and adjudicating upon complaints from the
general public.
The BSC is primarily a standard-setting rather than a
regulatory body. Its main Role is to undertake research
with a view to establishing consistent standards Across
the UK broadcasting sector. It has only two real powers
over Broadcasters. First, when drawing up or amending
their own codes of Conduct, the BBC, ITC and RA must
take the BSC’s codes into account.20
Second, the ITC, RA and BBC are all required to ensure
that the relevant Broadcaster publishes any adverse
finding of the BSC in relation to one of Their
programmes.
Although the BSC is a new body, it has already
established a relatively high Profile and receives a
significant number of complaints. In 1997-98, for
Example, it received a total of 3,559 complaints. The vast
majority of these Related to standards, primarily bad
taste, bad language, the inappropriate Depiction of sex
and violence, racism, the inappropriate depiction of
death and Drug abuse, items which were regarded as
excessively frightening, and the Use of child actors. 19%
of complaints relating to standards were upheld, as Were
45% of complaints relating to fairness. Broadcasters
whose Programmes are found to be in breach of the
BSC’s Codes are required to Publish the findings of the
BSC.
In two high profile cases, the BSC received a relatively
large number of Complaints but found that no breach of
its codes had occurred. The first Concerned the
broadcast, during the election campaign of 1997, of a
party Political advertisement of the extreme right wing
British National Party. While Many objected to the
broadcast per se, the BSC found that, while the
Complainants’ concerns were real, during an election the
balance must favour Freedom of expression. A significant
number of complaints were also received Concerning the
manner in which the broadcast media covered the death
of Diana, Princess of Wales. In each case, the BSC found
that broadcasters had Performed well in difficult
circumstances and dismissed the complaints.
The ITC Programme Code
There are, in total, six content codes governing different
aspects of Broadcasting in the UK. These are the RA’s
Programme Code and News and Current Affairs Code,
the ITC’s Programme Code, the BBC’s Producers’
Guidelines and, covering all broadcasters, the BSC’s Code
on Fairness and Privacy, and Code on Standards.
Amongst this bewildering array of codes There are
differences. They do, however, share many fundamental
similarities, Particularly as they are all required to reflect
the general tenor the BSC Codes.
Comparative analysis of uk and India media regulations

Every citizen has right to broadcast his article, book, painting and own views through various
broadcasting media like T.V. channels, FM radio, news papers, magazine, mobile networks etc. This right
is also regulated by Supreme Court through its various decisions also has extend the scope of freedom of
speech and expression. Their use must be controlled and regulated by public authority in public interest
to prevent the invasion of this right.

System Of Broadcasting Regulations In India

All executive and legislative power over posts, telegraph, telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other
forms of communication vests with the union.

Indian telegraphic Act Principal pillar for regulation of communications and broadcast.

This Act is not confined to the concept of telegraph but all other modern communication devices.

Sec 4 of the Act states that the Central government has exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining
and working telegraphs within India.

Major Laws And Regulations

Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 as amended.

Cable Television Networks Rule 1994 as amended.

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act. 1997 as amended.

Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act 1990 as amended.

Sports Broadcasting Signal (mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharti) Act. 2007.

Policy Guidelines for up linking from India as amended in 2011.

Policy Guidelines for downlinking of Television Channels as amended in 2011

Guidelines for obtaining DTH license.

The Telegraph Act. 1885.

2nd Amendment to Cable Television Networks(Regulation) Act 1995, mandating total digitalization in all
Cable Networks by Dec 2014

Broadcasting Services In India

Cable TV (Analogue and Digital)

DTH services

Terrestrial TV (Doordarshan)

Internet Protocol Television (IPTV)

Radio (AIR, FM radio, Community radio)

Key Features Of Broadcasting Regulations In India

Provide signals on non-discriminate basis to the distributors.

Share important sporting events of national importance with the public broadcaster.

Mandatory carriage of channels of public broadcaster and those operated by and on behalf of the
parliament.

TV channels to be carried over must have up-linking and downlinking guidelines.

Must carry provisions for national and all regional languages.

Detailed quality of service.

Must have all provisions for regulation, appointment of members to the governing body and grievance
redressal mechanisms.

Regulations In Broadcasting Sector

Interconnection Regulations:

Regulation of agreements between the service providers.

These regulations help the service providers in finalising the commercial and technical terms and
conditions to enter into an agreement.

Quality Of Service Regulations:

Connection, disconnection and shifting of satellite TV services.

Complaint redressal

Billing and other related aspects

Set top box related issues

Technical parameters to be followed by the service providers.

Tarrif Orders:

Prescribes the rate of wholesale, retail tarrifs and revenue share among the service providers

Broadcasting Regulations In Uk:

Ofcom
Ofcom is the regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries. It regulates the
TV and radio sectors, fixed line telecoms, mobiles, postal services, plus the airwaves over which wireless
devices operate. Ofcom works with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport.

Code Of Practice

Drawn up by variety of independent bodies.

Following public consultation.

Sometimes established by media or journalists.

The various codes of conduct in place in the UK generally provide guidelines for media professionals,
rather than setting clear prohibitions on specific types of content. They represent an attempt to provide
some guidance to the media recognising, however, that the world is almost infinitely complex and that it
is simply not possible to provide clear rules about what is and what is not allowed in all situations. A
variety of competing interests will generally be in play, including the public’s right to know, the practical
realities of life in the media, particularly the need to publish in a timely fashion, and various private
interests, such as privacy.

Specific Content Rules

In addition to the above mentioned code, the media is also subject to various specific content rules
governing defamation, obscenity, hate speech etc.

Print media is entirely self regulating and is free from statutory rules.

Broadcast media:

Private media is regulated by an independent television commission (ITC) and radio authority.

Public media is regulated by British Broadcasting Corporation and is not subject to ITC licensing.

File Copyright Online – File mutual Divorce in Delhi – Online Legal Advice – Lawyers in India

Broadcasting Regulations In India And How They Are Different From UK

Every citizen has right to broadcast his article, book, painting and own views through various
broadcasting media like T.V. channels, FM radio, news papers, magazine, mobile networks etc. This right
is also regulated by Supreme Court through its various decisions also has extend the scope of freedom of
speech and expression. Their use must be controlled and regulated by public authority in public interest
to prevent the invasion of this right.

Difference Between India And Uk With Respect To Broadcasting Regulations:

In India, the regulation of broadcasting is entrusted to the Union. Whereas in UK, it is entrusted to both
private and public entities. Self-regulatory process is not working in India.

In UK, the print media is totally self-regulating in nature. Both print and broadcast media is independent
from government control in the UK. A code of practice for broadcasting services is established to ensure
integrity and interest of the public.

There is no code of practice as that of UK India. Unlike India, there is balance between privacy and public
interest. The media may show anonymous public but only when their act indicates that they are public
in nature. The Indian regulatory committee is controlled only by the government officials appointed to
the board. Whereas in UK, both media and non-media persons are involved in the regulatory
mechanism. The media in UK is totally impartial and does not use any power to influence public opinion.

In India, press and media is predominantly influenced by political authorities. The media in UK is not
favour to one point. One cannot make own issues and statements. During elections, complicated rules
are made in order to regulate the spread of false information. The rules and regulations of the media
and the code of practice in UK is flexible and can be changed according to the needs of the service
providers. This practice cannot be followed ion India because any rule to be amended must follow a set
of rules and procedures. The regulatory bodies are highly professional, fair, transparent and Impartial in
UK.