Kannaiah, Ramya and Salma have a debate. Ramya argues it is okay to restrict the freedoms etc. but ensure that people do not live in poverty. Salma argues that food alone is not important. This equally important to have freedom of the press because there is no other way people would know if there is a violation of the dignity of people different parts of the country. Kannayya says that how will it make a difference if press belongs to the rich and powerful people, why would they cover things that ordinary people expect. They have different expectations. Whom would you agree with and give reasons, from the context of human rights?

I do not agree with Ramya. A person should not be restricted in any way. His freedom must never be curtailed in terms of his right to speech, right to education, right to secure job and the right to be treated equally. Living in poverty cannot be the basis as to which this statement can be justified.

I agree with Salma. An individual not only requires food but other securities as well. Although food is extremely important and adequate provisions must be made for the same, freedom of the press is also important. Press creates awareness about the happenings in other parts of the world. Without, a person in one part of the country will not have access to or knowledge about the other parts.

I partially agree with Kannayya. Although in recent times, the richer sections of the society have control over the press and they usually tend to cover up the stories which might harm them, the press still remains a powerful source of voice among the people.