Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegation for its presentation. I agree with everything it said about access to the courts. I said here last week that it is the preserve of the rich - end of story. I know people will say that legal fees have come down but in the real world with which most of us deal, for civil matters, the courts system is the preserve of the rich. If one has to ask the price, one cannot afford to go up to the four goldmines. Anybody who thinks they can go up there about any matter we discussed in the past fortnight would need a serious amount of cash. For the ordinary punter on the receiving end of some of the stuff we are discussing, access to the courts system to vindicate one's name and have it restored is simply not available.

I agree with the delegation in respect of the protection of identity. I note the examples it gave in respect of Drapier and Jonathan Swift. If Drapier said something defamatory about a Member of the Oireachtas, one could take a case against The Irish Times or whichever newspaper published it. The issue is where freedom of speech ends and defamation begins and how one sets margins. In one very high-profile case, an anonymous tweet, in some people's minds, changed the outcome of an election. I am firmly of the opinion, although I know some people would not agree with me, that this tweet did change the outcome of a very significant election. Where does anonymity fit in there? If Mary from Dunloe sends a politically motivated text or tweet to a programme and does untold damage as a result of a baseless allegation being read out on a national or local broadcaster, how does one marry freedom of speech with the untold damage it does to someone's reputation because somebody then says "ah sure, there is no smoke without fire"?

I was interested in what the delegation said about the convention on cybercrime. What are the reasons for the delay in ratifying it given that it has been knocking around since 2003? Let us take the example of the owner of a national newspaper which publishes a story given to it by Mary, Jack, Billy, Tom and Joe on which background checks have not been done and to which everybody has added their 10% VAT so that by the time the story comes to the newspaper, it is totally different. The newspaper goes to court and a judgement is handed down. Based on the delegation's experiences, have any social media outlets or discussion forums been challenged in the courts recently regarding what they permit to be hosted? A newspaper or news outlet that knowingly publishes or allows a newscaster to announce something without checking it to see if there is any element of truth in it has a vicarious liability straightaway and will take a hit on it and end up paying the piper. Have any of these so-called forums been subjected to the same treatment?