[NukeNet] From my Indian contact

[Frieda Berryhill]

I could almost see it coming

In order not to overwhelm you with e mails I have refrained from discussing the details about the terrible nuclear deal President Bush made with India. My contacts in India are extremely unhappy.  This contract , (as do all these questionable deals) is accompanied by attempts to restrict the free flow of in formation, and to muzzle opposition in India
Does something about the following e mail sound eerily familiar to you ?????(Shades of the Patriot Act ? etc.)
Please contact your legislators not to approve this deal. (I will discuss the details at a later time)
Thank you !
F
PLEASE READ !!! This is important


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Arun Shrivastava 
To: Paul de Burgh-Day ; steve solomon ; Stephen Lendman ; john mccarthy ; Frieda Berryhill ; ashaneeli at yahoo.com ; pankajsahay2001 at yahoo.com 
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 5:29 AM
Subject: Preparing for emergency powers in India thru Total Media control


Friends



As you sow, so you reap. The Indian media has enjoyed the bounty of Murdoch for far too long…fattened on some obscenely high salaries, none has the guts to get organized and take these bloody bureaucrats to task….This Prime Minister of India is a shameless bugger….preparing for the final sell-off to the Neocons in the USA And still no one wants to say anything that might hurt the finer sensibilities of the turbanator. 

arun
New Delhi


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1694428,curpg-2.cms 



NEW DELHI: In an attempt to muzzle the broadcast media, the UPA government has drafted a Bill that seeks to give sweeping powers to the bureaucracy to "inspect, search and seize equipment" and even "prosecute" media companies on a mere complaint from an individual. 

What's more, such wanton trampling of the Fourth Estate cannot be challenged in court. The draft — a copy of which is with TOI — has been prepared by the I&B ministry for the Cabinet's approval. 

Apart from empowering government officials of the ranks of district magistrate, sub-divisional magistrate or police commissioner to barge into newsrooms are seize equipment, the draft Bill sets down arbitrary limits to cross-channel ownership. 

The policing powers of officials — set down in section 24 — are enforced under section 23 (iv) that seeks to give every "authorised" officer the power to "prosecute" the "offenders" and "to prohibit any service provider from transmitting or re-transmitting any programme if it is not in conformity with the prescribed Content Code". 

What may become particularly frightening for the media is that officials can do this on mere receipt of a complaint from either a consumer forum or individuals, the draft Bill says. 

"If any authorised officer has reason to believe, or is directed by the Licensing Authority or the Authority or the Central government, that the provisions of this Act or other terms and conditions of a licence have been or are being breached by a lincensee, he may seize the equipment being used by such service provider," the Bill says. 

The primary accent of the proposed law is clearly on controlling the media by punitive action. Section 25 underlines the babus' authority in "confiscating" equipment, "imposing a fine which may extend up to Rs 50 lakh", "suspend" or "revoke" the license, and "curtail" the lincense period. 



Section 37 makes it clear that the officials' action cannot be challenged even in court. "No civil court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the Authority or the Licensing Authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine," it says. 

In a professed attempt to "prevent monopolies across different segments of the media" the draft Bill suggests arbitrary ownership caps while giving the government authority to prescribe eligibility conditions and impose restrictions. 

It proposes that no television company shall have more than 20% share of paid-up equity or any other financing or commercial arrangement that may give it management control over the financial, management or editorial policies of any other player, clause 10 stipulates. 

In fact, the law, if it comes into effect, will restrict a television group from having more than the prescribed share of the total number of channels in a city or state. 

Such a service provider cannot control more than 15% of the total TV channels in a country. It also seeks to prevent a broadcast network service provider from having 15% of the country's total viewership. 

The share of public service messaging and social promos must not be less than 10% of the total programme contents of a TV channel, the draft proposes.



If you would like to be removed from my list let me know

For Arun"s credentials check with Google.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20060701/fcc80fbc/attachment.htm