Seanad debates

Tuesday, 11 December 2007

Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I thank the Minister for his reply. I understand the parliamentary draftsman stated the singular may be interpreted as the plural. Let us remove the concept of "may" and make this mandatory by including the plural. This is a significant shift in favour of freedom of expression and against the plaintiff in the case. In the circumstances, it would be fair and reasonable for the publisher to make a number of attempts to ascertain the opinion of the person who may be defamed. While the parliamentary draftsman may be correct in this regard, why is it necessary to allow for discretion in this instance? Why not make the provision stronger? I do not wish to be pedantic but this is an important issue. I ask the Minister to consider it positively before Report Stage.

The motivating factor behind amendment No. 23 is not so much to require a publication to obtain in advance the views of a person who may be defamed and reflect these in a statement but to require that a publisher make reasonable attempts in advance to obtain and publish a response from the person, perhaps even in a timely fashion. We want to prevent the media from engaging in token gestures to satisfy the letter but not the spirit of the law by attempting to contact individuals at the last minute. In these circumstances, they have the excuse of being unable to contact the individual at a given time.

If we choose to shift the onus on the defendant in a defamation action from being required to show a statement was true to being required to show it was made in "good faith" as part of a "discussion of a subject of public importance", we must, as a corollary, strengthen the interest of the plaintiff to ensure he or she is not placed in an impossible position in attempting to have his or her good name vindicated in court.

In light of advances in communications and the length of time some articles are in gestation prior to publication, it is not unreasonable to expect that early attempts would be made to obtain a statement, correction or opinion from the person about whom the article has been written, if he or she wishes to provide such information.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.