Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

One of the objectives of defamation law - it might not be stated in law - is that, at a time when there is so much mistrust about misinformation and disinformation, it should be a case that anybody who is publishing anything, particularly a professional media outlet, should not want to tell lies. The difficulty with this definition is that, for a for-profit entity, you can publish lies about it as long as it does not actually have a financial loss. There might be reasons for publishing lies or making defamatory remarks, even beyond media outlets, in the sense that while one company might not suffer a financial loss because of lies being told about it, another company might get a financial benefit from it, if the context in which that would happen can be understood.

We know that a lot of media organisations in particular, let us call a spade a spade, have been very eager to ensure it is as difficult as possible for defamation cases to be taken. Of course, they are concerned about their own corporate future and their ability to be financially viable. It is not to dismiss those concerns at all. The right to a good name can be as equally valid for an entity as it is for an individual.

We are moving to a point where, essentially, we now have three standards. We have the standard for what counts as defamation of individuals, which is a fairly high standard, in fairness. We have a standard for not-for-profit corporate entities and the definition of serious harm. I am not sure how that would be proven in that case. I could certainly see an area where that would be very contested, and I know members of the legal profession will probably be licking their lips at that prospect. We then have the third standard, which concerns for-profit entities, which is at least clear in what can be constituted in that there has to be a financial impact, but again, once there is no provable financial impact, you can essentially say what you like.

I am not opposing this section of the Bill at this stage but I am raising serious concerns. This is one of the reasons Committee Stage is better in a committee room where we are able to thrash these things back and forward. There are particular concerns about this section but the Minister has given an assurance that he will look at this as we move on with the Bill.

I encourage him to ensure that that happen and that there is a proper examination of the potential implications here.

See this speech in context