Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

In recent months we have seen how section 39 of the Broadcasting Act has been exploited by individuals and organisations seeking to further their own agendas and define the terms of the upcoming public debate on marriage equality. As the barrister Mr. Brian Barrington pointed out at the time of the Pantigate scandal, by its censorship of Mr. Rory O'Neill RTE has undermined confidence in its impartiality and has also made clear that it will not facilitate a free and fair debate. We found ourselves in the bizarre situation where members of the LGBT community were essentially being told they could not name homophobia when they see it, and that it was more offensive to call someone a homophobe than to experience homophobia itself.

Under the international covenant on civil and political rights, everyone has both a right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression. Yet RTE denied these rights to Rory O'Neill when it apologised for his comments, censored them and financially compensated the people who claimed to find his views offensive. It is clear that a debate about this whole issue is good and positive. On those grounds, I welcome Deputy Donnelly's Bill.

On the other hand, we must also consider those who would use free speech to express opinions based on prejudice and intolerance. The democratic right to protect such views must not be portrayed as censorship. Earlier this week, a disgraceful column about the Traveller community was published in the Irish Daily Mail. The article was rightly condemned by the Traveller organisation Pavee Point for using strong hate speech and stereotypes. The Equality Authority described it as shameful and stated that it was not only untrue but was designed to be demeaning, hurtful and risk incitement.

In response, the paper's group editor publicly defended the piece on the grounds of free speech, stating "We will continue to fight alone, if we have to, for the right of citizens to debate all matters of public policy without state censorship". That beggars belief coming from such a periodical. The author of the piece took to the national airwaves to claim that her critics were closing down debate and that she was the real victim of this controversy. It could easily be argued that Joe Duffy's "Liveline" show caused offence to the Traveller community. It could probably also be accused of causing harm in how it gave a platform for such racist views to be aired.

There is a strange - or maybe we should say intentional - misconception that to criticise someone's views, especially when they have been given a public platform to express them, is to be an opponent of free speech. It is important to note that those who cry "censorship" are more often than not the people who hold positions of power. Ms Brenda Power has the platform of a national newspaper in which to express, as Pavee Point put it, inherently racist views.

Members of the Travelling community are rarely given such a platform to defend themselves or to write about the damage that racist speech does, yet Ms Power is the one who claims to be targeted when her opinions are criticised for contributing to the extremely serious level of discrimination against Travellers. We also saw this narrative play out in the Pantigate scandal, as the individuals who were so offended by Rory O'Neill's comments frequently used their positions of power in the national media to express discriminatory views about the LGBT community.

See this speech in context