Dáil debates

Wednesday, 30 November 2022

Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill 2022: Report and Final Stages

 

6:37 pm

Photo of Pa DalyPa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Banning certain speech or coverage from being broadcast is a serious matter, especially if the grounds for the banning are subjective and left to unelected civil servants to define, as proposed. While my party colleague Deputy Munster discussed one of the amendments in the grouping, I will focus on amendments Nos. 45 and 46, which relate to lines 22 and 23 of page 51. I understand from the debate that took place in the Seanad that this wording is considered a necessary ground for banning a broadcast to comply with Article 40.6 of the Constitution. Paragraph 1° of this Article sets out the right of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions. It states, "The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State." It is perplexing, then, that the Minister is being selective in regard to which elements of the Article to reiterate in the Bill.

Anything that may reasonably be regarded as tending to undermine the authority of the State is prohibited. The authority of the State is the only element of the constitutional provision on free speech specifically mentioned in this law, and this is a worrying focus. There is no caveat to ensure that the need to protect against undermining the authority of the State will be balanced against the need to preserve liberty of expression. Given the Minister is not proposing to include in this ban anything regarded as undermining public order or morality, which feature in the same sentence as the phrase "authority of the State" in that Article of the Constitution, we can safely assume there is no need to reiterate anything, because it is already law.

That is why we propose to delete this provision with amendment No. 45. In the event that this is not acceptable to the Minister, we propose an alternative wording whereby the same need to balance this protection with the need to preserve liberty of expression is included in the provision. The caveat included in the Constitution specifies that criticism of Government policy is grounds for speech being protected and we have repeated that here.

There is real danger that a criticism of Government policy could be interpreted as undermining the authority of the State. It is not right that coimisiún na meán or broadcasters would be left fearing that if they allow such content to be broadcast, they might be in breach of the law and, therefore, the Minister should clarify in law that criticism of Government policy is protected or confirm that. Otherwise, this is a worrying step towards draconian restrictions by Government on what can be broadcast.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.