Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have a degree of sympathy with the amendments tabled by Senator Higgins and the whole question in respect of section 46J. The intention is clear but it will be a matter of interpretation. The difficulty with the section relates to the specific language that, "A broadcaster shall not broadcast ... [or] make available in a catalogue ... anything which may reasonably be regarded as causing harm or offence". The question there is who will determine what is reasonably viewed as causing harm or offence. It is certainly the case that some people take offence to programmes on RTÉ or other radio or television stations. We could all watch the same programme and some people would consider it perfectly normal while others would find offence. It will be a question of interpretation.

It comes back to the fundamental debate we had in respect of the powers and functions of the commission and how we ensure a balance between freedom of expression and the responsibilities around protecting privacy and reputation and other rights. I am conscious that many people who speak about the right to freedom of expression tend not to also speak about their responsibilities. Freedom of expression involves a responsibility not to spread misinformation or disinformation. One has a responsibility to take into account how one's words can harm others and so on. Equally, there is a responsibility to accept that things will be uttered with which one disagrees and takes offence. It is about getting that balance right.

I have sympathy with much of what Senator Higgins is trying to do, not just through these amendments but also the subsequent ones. I refer to the point in respect of "tending to undermine the authority of the State". I agree with the principle in that regard but it needs to be more clearly defined. I do not have a problem with a person suggesting that Government policy in a particular area is wrong and there should be major protests against it but if a person goes beyond that to engage in personalised abuse of a Minister or seeks to organise a protest outside the home of a Minister and uses broadcast media to do so, that is stretching over the line.What really needs to happen more is that there needs to be a reflection on some of the language in the Bill. It is clear within the section what it is intended to achieve but I share Senator Higgins's concern because some of this is a question of interpretation. We might have in our head what it means but I am concerned that, down the line, one may have a commission that will exercise its powers in a particular way. A Minister or commission that is not as keen on free speech and freedom of expression might seek to interpret this in a different way. This entire section just requires a bit more clarity.