Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I said this on the previous occasion we debated this issue, when the Minister's predecessor took the debate, and I did not get far. This is a significant shift in our defamation laws. I agree with Senator Norris. The good faith criteria are weak. There is an amendment to remove section 24(1)(a), "in good faith", and even paragraph (b), "in the course of, or for the purposes of, the discussion of a subject of public importance, the discussion of which was for the public benefit", may not be strong enough. It is a shift towards freedom of expression, which we must make, but it could undermine all the other balancing measures we are trying to include for the person who is defamed, the plaintiff. This is significant.

If we continue with this we should have at least a paragraph (c) stating that strenuous efforts must be made by the reporter or publication concerned and obliging them to check or ascertain that what they are publishing is true and factual. That is not in place. I am concerned by the absence of this strong criterion, which should underpin all publications of statements that may impact on people's good names. If stories are not true they should not be published. This significantly dilutes that principle.