Seanad debates

Tuesday, 11 December 2007

Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Ivor CallelyIvor Callely (Fianna Fail)

I support Senator Walsh's amendment. While I appreciate the Minister's point with regard to parliamentary draftsmen and his undertaking to report to the House again on Report Stage, I am inclined to support the view that the House should be more prescriptive in this regard and should not leave a decision on the matter to the interpretation of a court. I emphasise my earlier point on the provision allowing for a defence of "fair and reasonable publication" on a matter of public importance or that a statement has been essentially designed to facilitate public discussion. Where do we draw the line? What is the difference between an issue of "public importance" and what the media may decide is of interest to the public?

Members of the House or, given the day that is in it, catwalk models and their spouses, children and other family members are entitled to a private life. In certain cases in the past, they have not been afforded this entitlement. While we can support the defence that a statement has been published to further discussion of a matter of public importance, we should have a clear understanding of what is a private issue for an individual and his or her family. In this regard, I highlight the practice of publishing stories or photographs of individuals or their families. In the case of a public representative, his or her family members or spouse are not subjects of public importance and their private lives should remain private.

It is very difficult to adjudicate on whether "a reasonable attempt was made by the publisher to obtain and publish a response" from a plaintiff. If a media organisation communicated to a person by sending 101 e-mails which were not received, would this be deemed "a reasonable attempt" to obtain a response? Perhaps the person's system received the e-mails or he or she received a document by fax or letter. In such cases, will it be left to the court to adjudicate on what is reasonable? Senator Walsh is correct to argue that we should be more prescriptive in this regard. At minimum, the section should include a definition of what is deemed to be reasonable.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.