Mr. Fergal Crehan:

Mr. McIntyre questioned whether there is a gap in the legislation. We need to ask whether some of these problems can be fixed by legislation and whether there is a lack of legislation to deal with bullying. In a classic case of bullying, a child is beaten up and his lunch money is stolen. In the adult world we call that a mugging and people are sent to jail for committing this offence. We have to ask ourselves if that is how we want to deal with bullying. Are there legal remedies to bullying, or is it something that has to be dealt with on a much lower, more educational level? I would say that it is. I agree that laws to deal with bullying exist, but it may not necessarily be a good idea to involve the law. Some kind of educational programme is necessary. There are television advertisements about drink awareness, food safety and various other public health issues. I argue that this is a public health issue in that, when children go to school, they learn to read and write but they also learn how to play with other children, how to get on with people their own age or different ages, and how to respect people who are different from them. That is what they learn in the playground, outside of the classroom. Increasingly, children and adults live their lives online. This may provide education not only from the point of view of general socialising and learning to play with one's peers but also from a civic point of view. If we are to have some kind of civic education where debate and public debate is polite and reasonable, then this may be something to be considered at an educational level.

Deputies O'Donovan and Ellis asked about tweets and text messages sent to radio programmes. They referred to the famous occasion of the presidential debate. In my experience, radio station presenters have a computer in front of them and they read whatever they think is interesting as a contribution to the programme. The presenter is acting in a journalistic role. There is no filtering except that the broadcaster chooses what he or she decides is a funny tweet or an interesting text, which is then read out. In the event that something defamatory is read out, it will be that journalist's and that radio station's necks on the line. It may not be financially worth their while to go after the person who sent the tweet or the text. However, they are free to do so and they can join the person as parties to the dispute. There is no question of filtering. Broadcasters decide what they want to read out, in the same way as newspapers. Deputy O'Donovan said that stories often snowball with quotes from various parties. Everyone has their ten percent added. The journalist and the editor must decide whether their sources are credible or otherwise. If a source is only a tweet, then it may not be a good idea to go to print.