Student Porn Site Issue: Did The Media Display
Enough Sensitivity?
By Shailaja
Bajpai
Did the media display a sense of proportion in covering the
case of the Delhi schoolboy who created a pornographic site? Did the boy¿s crime
warrant such prominence in the media? Did it not contravene the spirit of the
Children Act of 1960 by revealing the name of the school? If the media had
treated the incident with a finer degree of sensitivity, the boy¿s school may
have taken a more lenient course of action against him.
First, the facts. In April a male student in the 10th standard of a New Delhi
school was arrested for creating a website that contained pornographic material
about schoolmates and teachers on the Internet. He sent it, anonymously to
students from his school. The parent
of one girl who was who named and subjected to obscene descriptions on the
website complained to the CBI and subsequently the boy was identified, arrested
and sent to a remand home. He was released after two days. Thereafter, he was
rusticated from his school, though he will be permitted to appear for the Board
exams, next year.
The story was broken by the Hindustan Times on April
25 which ran an exclusive on the front page of its Delhi edition . It sounded
like the source was the police. Over the next few days, it continued to report
on developments, with more reports on the front page. The Indian Express picked
up the story and covered it extensively in the city Newsline section, front
page. Other newspapers and TV news channels also reported the story. Editorials
were written on it in at least two newspapers.
In the first instance, The Hindustan Times withheld
the name of the errant male student and the girl whose father reported the
matter to the CBI. However, it did reveal the name of the school where they
studied, and even quoted the principal ¿s comments on the issue the first time
it broke the story . All subsequent stories in the media also named the school
and its principal. The latter was extensively interviewed. Students from the
school were also quoted. The school was shown prominently in TV news reports.
In the laws governing arrests and media crime
coverage, The Children Act, 1960, prohibits the disclosure of the name, address
and other particulars (emphasis mine) of any child involved in certain
proceedings. The media coverage in this case contravenes the spirit of the Act:
it revealed the name of the school. It interviewed the Principal of
the school, it talked to its students who knew the student involved in the
crime. In fact, short of naming the boy and printing his photograph, it
revealed all ``other particulars¿¿.The story often received banner headlines on
the front page. On at least one occasion, the story appeared at the top of The
Hindustan Times, Delhi edition.Of course the media had to report the story.
Pornography is evil in any hands. Worse, when on the fingertips of a mere child
who then harassed other female students with the obscene messages. The case has
highlighted one of the major concerns about the new technologies: a child¿s
potentially limitless access and usage of the Internet, a usage which can be
anonymous. As a result, adults may be unaware of what their children are doing
on the Net, which websites or chatlines they hit and use.
Thus, the arrest and subsequent action against the student in this case, was a timely warning to all children and adults and to the government that more care needs to be exercised in the child¿s exposure to the Net. To that extent, the media¿s dissemination of the details of the case, were necessary, salutary.