There are lot of tweets today about Supreme Court admitting a PIL (Public Interest Litigation). The PIL seeks to make watching porn a non-bailable offence.
The question that came to mind is - What is the meaning of public here (in the context of PIL).
To my mind -
90% of the 50 yr plus population want to watch porn in India. But 99% of those 50 yr plus do not want their children to watch porn.
99% of children want to watch porn. But 99% of those children do not want their 50 yr plus parents to watch the porn.
In such a situation who will constitute the public and why?
To my mind -
As per law we can let the parents decide for themselves. Since they constitute the public.
As per law the parents can be allowed to decide for their children. So watching porn can be banned for children.
But as per law children cannot be taken to jail. Arresting children for such an offence is against public law.
So that makes it catch 22 situation.
The question that came to mind is - What is the meaning of public here (in the context of PIL).
To my mind -
90% of the 50 yr plus population want to watch porn in India. But 99% of those 50 yr plus do not want their children to watch porn.
99% of children want to watch porn. But 99% of those children do not want their 50 yr plus parents to watch the porn.
In such a situation who will constitute the public and why?
To my mind -
As per law we can let the parents decide for themselves. Since they constitute the public.
As per law the parents can be allowed to decide for their children. So watching porn can be banned for children.
But as per law children cannot be taken to jail. Arresting children for such an offence is against public law.
So that makes it catch 22 situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment