The Andhra Pradesh Bar Council has called for a new system to address online trolling and digital abuse directed at the judiciary. This request follows incidents where High Court Judge K. Sreenivasa Reddy faced harassment after his ruling in a case involving YSRCP president Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy. In a recent virtual meeting, council members proposed establishing a dedicated mechanism under the Registrar's supervision to handle such cases of online abuse.

Additionally, they suggested creating a special unit under the Director General of Police (DGP) to monitor and investigate these incidents, allowing for swift action against offenders. The council condemned the character attacks against Justice Sreenivasa Reddy on social media and emphasized that judicial decisions should not be subject to personal attacks or misinterpretations.

They noted that there have been previous instances of similar misconduct towards judges, highlighting the need for immediate action from both Central and State governments as well as higher courts to protect judicial integrity.

Original article

This article provides limited value to an average individual. It lacks actionable information, failing to offer concrete steps or guidance that readers can take to address online trolling and digital abuse directed at the judiciary. The article primarily serves as a news report, conveying information about the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council's proposal to establish a dedicated mechanism to handle such cases without providing any direct actions or decisions readers can make.

In terms of educational depth, the article provides some background context on the issue but lacks substance and technical knowledge. It does not explain the causes or consequences of online abuse in detail, nor does it provide uncommon information that equips readers to understand the topic more clearly.

The article has personal relevance only for individuals directly involved in or affected by judicial decisions in Andhra Pradesh. However, its impact is limited to this specific geographic context and does not extend beyond it.

The article fails to serve any public service function, as it does not provide access to official statements, safety protocols, emergency contacts, or resources readers can use. Instead of offering practical advice or guidance, it reuses public data without context.

The recommendations proposed by the council are vague and lack practicality. Establishing a dedicated mechanism under the Registrar's supervision is a broad statement that does not provide concrete steps for implementation.

In terms of long-term impact and sustainability, the article encourages short-term reactions rather than promoting lasting positive effects. The focus on addressing online abuse directed at judges is timely but may not have enduring benefits unless accompanied by more comprehensive measures.

The article has no constructive emotional or psychological impact. It reports on incidents of harassment without providing any support for resilience, hope, critical thinking, or empowerment.

Finally, this article appears designed primarily to generate clicks rather than inform or educate readers. The sensational headline and lack of substantial content suggest that its purpose is more focused on engagement than providing meaningful value to readers.

The input text conveys a range of emotions, from anger and frustration to concern and a sense of urgency. The strongest emotion expressed is anger, which appears in the condemnation of the character attacks against Justice Sreenivasa Reddy on social media. This anger is palpable in phrases such as "condemned the character attacks" and "judicial decisions should not be subject to personal attacks or misinterpretations." This emotional tone serves to emphasize the gravity of the situation and to convey a sense of outrage at the behavior directed at the judge.

The text also expresses concern and worry about the impact of online trolling and digital abuse on the judiciary. The council's proposal for a dedicated mechanism to handle such cases suggests that they are taking steps to address this issue, which implies a sense of responsibility and commitment. This concern is evident in phrases such as "new system to address online trolling" and "swift action against offenders," which convey a sense of urgency and importance.

Another emotion present in the text is frustration, which appears in the context of previous instances of similar misconduct towards judges. The council notes that there have been previous instances, highlighting the need for immediate action from both Central and State governments as well as higher courts. This frustration serves to emphasize that this issue is not new or isolated, but rather part of a larger pattern that requires attention.

The writer uses emotional language strategically throughout the text. For example, by using words like "harassment," "abuse," and "attacks," they create an atmosphere of tension and hostility. By emphasizing that judicial decisions should not be subject to personal attacks or misinterpretations, they highlight the importance of protecting judges from online abuse.

The writer also uses repetition to increase emotional impact. For instance, by mentioning previous instances of similar misconduct towards judges, they drive home their point about how widespread this problem is. By repeating their call for immediate action from various authorities, they reinforce their message about how urgent this issue is.

Furthermore, by telling us about specific incidents involving Justice Sreenivasa Reddy's harassment after his ruling in a case involving YSRCP president Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, they create an example that illustrates their point about how serious online abuse can be for judges.

In terms of persuasion tools used by writers like these examples help steer readers' attention or thinking towards certain conclusions or actions without making them feel manipulated into doing so instead it makes them feel more informed so when we read something with all these tools combined we tend stay with what we are reading because it becomes more interesting than if it was just neutral information

Knowing where emotions are used can make it easier for readers like you stay control over how you understand what you read because then you can recognize when someone trying manipulate your feelings instead telling facts

The text presents a clear example of virtue signaling, where the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council condemns the character attacks against Justice Sreenivasa Reddy on social media, emphasizing that judicial decisions should not be subject to personal attacks or misinterpretations. This statement is a classic example of virtue signaling, where the council presents itself as a champion of justice and integrity, while actually serving its own interests. The quote "judicial decisions should not be subject to personal attacks or misinterpretations" (emphasis added) reveals this bias, as it implies that the council is above criticism and that any criticism is inherently unjust.

The text also exhibits linguistic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. The phrase "harassment" and "character attacks" are emotive terms that create a negative connotation towards those who disagree with Justice Sreenivasa Reddy's ruling. This language manipulation aims to sway public opinion in favor of the council and against those who engage in online trolling. The quote "harassment after his ruling in a case involving YSRCP president Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy" highlights this bias, as it uses sensational language to create a sense of urgency and outrage.

Furthermore, the text displays structural bias by advocating for a dedicated mechanism under the Registrar's supervision to handle cases of online abuse. This proposal reinforces existing power structures within the judiciary, where authority figures like Registrars hold significant sway over decision-making processes. The quote "establishing a dedicated mechanism under the Registrar's supervision" reveals this bias, as it implies that existing power structures are sufficient to address online abuse without questioning their legitimacy.

The text also exhibits selection and omission bias by selectively presenting facts about previous instances of misconduct towards judges. While it mentions that there have been previous instances of similar misconduct, it does not provide specific examples or details about these incidents. This selective presentation creates an impression that such incidents are more common than they actually are, thereby justifying calls for increased regulation and control over online speech. The quote "there have been previous instances of similar misconduct towards judges" highlights this bias, as it implies that such incidents are widespread without providing concrete evidence.

In addition, the text displays framing and narrative bias by presenting itself as an advocate for judicial integrity while actually pushing for greater control over online speech. By framing online trolling as an attack on judicial integrity rather than an exercise in free speech or dissenting opinion, the council creates a narrative that justifies increased regulation over social media platforms and individual users' behavior online.

The text also exhibits temporal bias by referencing historical events without providing context about their significance or relevance to contemporary issues surrounding online abuse directed at judges. For instance, when mentioning previous instances of misconduct towards judges without specifying what these incidents were or how they relate to current concerns about digital abuse directed at judges.

Finally, when discussing technical claims about creating special units under DGP supervision to monitor digital abuse directed at judges; there is no evaluation whether data is framed properly; if sources cited support particular narratives; if neutrality masks implicit biases through selective framing; if false balance exists between opposing viewpoints presented within same article