Seanad debates

Wednesday, 21 March 2007

Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Before Senator Norris had started speaking I indicated I wished to speak on these amendments but if I had heard him first I probably would not have indicated because it is not too easy to follow his contribution. I watched him on television the other night and I admired the passion with which he made his point. He left nobody in any doubt as to his views on aspects of this Bill. I applaud him because it is courageous for politicians to take a stand, especially where it is in opposition to a newspaper. The media contain a significant minority that do not fall into the category of responsible people. One can expose oneself to being excoriated by being critical of the media. The media, which rightly demand and maintain the prerogative to be critical of others, seem to operate to a different standard when it comes to themselves.

I am persuaded by Senator Maurice Hayes's amendment and I note the Government amendment No. 26 in this regard. The granting of judicial discretion is good but I do not understand how it is either necessary or desirable in this instance. On Second Stage I argued that if somebody is defamed, the very least that should happen is that the publication of an apology would be published on the same page as the original incorrect article. My desire would be that any such apology would be published on the front page and I see no reason this should not be so.

The defence of fair and reasonable publication as proposed in the Bill is to be welcomed. However, aspects of the Bill need to be rebalanced because it seems the average person will have no possibility of any entitlement to remedying his or her good name or reputation without risking all their finances gained in a lifetime. This is an invidious position for people. I hope the House will achieve a rebalancing of the Bill. I am not certain the Minister will go as far as I would like him to and require the apology to be put on the front page. If an apology is on the front page, some newspapers would have many apology notices appearing on the front page which it is to be hoped would damage their circulation and credibility and so act as a deterrent to the newspaper industry.

Arguments have been put forward for the establishment of a press council to improve and maintain adherence to a code of conduct for newspapers, and I am in agreement. However, I concede that Senator Maurice Hayes's amendment is probably more balanced than my line of argument. I ask the Minister to consider the Senator's proposal positively as it is not an area that would require judicial discretion.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.