We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
"Reason:
Directly attacks reputation, vile and defamatory content in thread without any accountability. Can push people to self harm. How are you allowing this?"
I am unsure what to do. Please help!
- R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQtSMNA1A1w
https://www.facebook.com/msnlu/videos/appreciation-post-for-sanya-talwar-maamfollow-memesocietynlu-for-more/2105195569623760/
Personally never come across a single news report witha slant on lawbeat… she may be right left or centre.. who gives a rats A$$
- R
What I am asking you though is to censor abuses from posts, that's the minimum that a responsible moderator can and should do. Regardless of the merit of any argument, I doubt anatomical references add any to its credit.
- R
Are we, or should we, even be bothered?
I wish LawBeat every success and am sure it will be among the top sites for lawyers one day.
..
Secondly, the stories you have quoted, she/the author is just quoting the Court. It is not the job of a legal updates website to provide views on the Judgment, except if it's an opinion column. For that you can always go to The Hindu, The Wire, etc.
Quote: How is this a shortcoming of Talwar or her website?
Quote: No matter what your opinion regarding Sanya or her website is, how is LiveLaw even remotely involved in this? She used to work there. Now she doesn't. End of story. As an aside, LiveLaw does similar clickbait-y stuff all the time. For that you can always credit them.
Why do you guys get so insecure when the RWs smash LWs? Both can equally smash each other, as long as the fact remains true.
https://twitter.com/LegalTalwar/status/1451882019747553280
Many of her other tweets are also openly pro-BJP. Won't go into that.
Also the stories and headlines by LawBeat clearly have a RW bias. Some examples:
1. "Cursory & plain reading of speech delivered at Jamia Milia Islamia reveals it's divisive & communal lines": Delhi Court rejects Sharjeel Imam's bail
https://www.lawbeat.in/top-stories/cursory-plain-reading-speech-delivered-jamia-milia-islamia-reveals-its-divisive
Now contrast this with serious news sites like the Wire, which point out what a joke of a case this is.
2. "“Unclear why West Bengal would come in way of investigation, inevitably shielding the guilty”: Centre to Supreme Court, "
https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/unclear-why-west-bengal-would-come-way-investigation-inevitably-shielding-guilty-centre
This story misses so many aspects of the case. It is an issue of federalism. Also, why are similar cases in UP going uninvestigated?
I have to say, I am really shocked to see this as I always thought that LiveLaw was a good site.