Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The key issue here relates to the question of freedom of expression and to whether there is, as Deputy Clare Daly stated, an absolute right to that freedom and to freedom of speech. I agree with her that there is not an absolute right to either. She is correct and Deputy Finian McGrath is wrong. If we were to completely remove any objective and reasonable test of what comprises an offence, it would lead to the development of American-style standards here. Of course it is true that one person can be more easily offended than another or that someone can take offence when there is nothing of substance about which to be offended. The latter comes down to what is personal and subjective.

The man on the Clapham omnibus is a reasonable test to apply. If the term "offence" were to be excised completely, we would go down the Jerry Springer route. There are all kinds of opt-out channels which one can view on any given evening, the content of the programmes on which bear out what I am saying. That does not enhance the quality of public debate in this country, nor does it do anything - in terms of the argument in respect of the matter under discussion - to confuse the defamation laws with those relating to broadcasting. Any litigation which is contemplated is grounded in the defamation laws, not in the broadcasting legislation. As Deputy Donnelly is aware - he asked me about the matter and I informed him of what is happening - I am reviewing the legislation on broadcasting and I will introduce a Bill in due course. However, that is not the same as stating that I intend to change the law on defamation. It is a matter for the Minister for Justice and Equality to change that law. The laws on broadcasting and defamation are two entirely different things.

I cannot comment on the article in the Daily Mailto which reference has been made. This is the first I have heard about the article, which I did not see it. The reality is that we have a duty to protect the rights not just of individuals but also of groups and minorities. This must be pitted in the delicate balance between the right to freedom of expression and the duty on any Government, regardless of its hue, to protect - under the Constitution - to protect the rights of individuals, groups and minorities in our society. That is the balance which we must strive to achieve.

I will not revisit the argument which states that if RTE had withstood the litigation with which it had been threatened and gone to court, it would have won. None of us can say that RTE would have won. I accept that it might perhaps have won but nobody can say so for sure. RTE has stated that the legal advice it received indicated that it did not have a case to defend and that in light of its commercial responsibilities, it was of the view that it would have cost it a great deal financially if the matter went to court two or three years from now.

I welcome this debate. That is different to saying that I agree with the Bill, which I believe to be entirely inappropriate. Some of the contributors to the debate essentially agree with my views. They do not like my personality but they agree with my views. Those to whom I refer do not support the Bill either but they wanted the issues involved ventilated. Deputy Donnelly has facilitated that and I am glad to have been in a position to respond.

See this speech in context