Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of amendments in this section. Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 deal with similar concerns but are possibly more serious in terms of the problems with the language as it is construed. I refer to the ambiguity around addressing what is or is not offensive. Amendment No. 87 addresses specific concerns. The provision at the moment gives undue weighting to the question of a person's convictions. The reference is “with due sensitivity to the convictions or feelings of the audience,". I seek to replace that with the phrase "with due sensitivity to the subject matter and the audience,", although I do not object to the term "feelings of the audience" being included. If somebody has a religious conviction that somebody else should not exist, that is not something that the authority or media services should have due regard to. It is suggested that the audience must be protected from anything that is harmful or offensive to anybody's convictions or feelings. That is very important. The term "convictions" is quite wide. Does it include political convictions? For example, if a political party gets a majority vote in the State, does a broadcaster say that it represents the majority of people's convictions and it will not do anything that challenges that? If it is a religion, does a broadcaster become religious in that regard? We know that there are perspectives where people have convictions on entire other genders and how they should be treated. We have seen attitudes in terms of how women have been treated in the past in the media.

There is a whole piece here. We need to look to the question of sensitivity, but as it is framed at the moment: "with due sensitivity to the convictions or feelings of the audience," creates parity between somebody who is personally affected by a matter and somebody who has a view on a matter. Somebody who has an opinion is given the same weighting, regardless of whether the opinion is rooted in any kind of fact, as somebody who is personally affected and vulnerable. That is why I have tried to bring in language that does not limit in any way the freedom of the media, but ensures that they can bring a nuanced approach so as to have due sensitivity to the subject matter and whether it is inflammatory or may have consequences, affect or create distress or distressing situations for individuals that may affect their freedom to participate in society. Sensitivity to the subject matter and sensitivity to the audience is a better frame than the idea of allowing a person's sensitivity to convictions or feelings. How are those to be measured? Will there be opinion polls in the case of an audience? How will the audience of an online provider be measured?. This is where it becomes very important in terms of media service providers because in the case of radio stations or broadcasters, they tend to be catering to a very wide audience, but we may well have online media providers that are catering to a very particular audience.They may be able to say that their audience wants many very angry messages that reinforce the audience's convictions. We know there are media outlets online that specialise in mining a seam of hatred, exploitation or fear and continue to feed it. Those may well be the convictions of their audience. It is almost like a mandate for an echo chamber. It is, therefore, really important that this be addressed. I know it is an issue at which the Minister is looking and that it will be considered in the Dáil. The Minister might not be able to take on board the measure I put forward in respect of this but it is an area where, to be honest, simply transposing the old law and old language will not work. It is not actually working in terms of media generally at the moment and that language will especially not work in terms of online media. Again, I urge the Minister to look at that.

Amendment No. 88 is a very practical amendment that seeks to ensure that, for example, provisions related to sexual conduct would not ban the inclusion of educational materials on sexual health and relationships. It is to ensure that, for example, an online provider that is providing useful information or material for individuals in terms of sexual health, consent, relationships and so forth does not inadvertently fall under this remit or, indeed, that the commission is not bothered with needless complaints that suggest it might fall under that remit. Again, this is trying to ensure that the commission does not have to deal unnecessarily with measures that are not really a matter of concern.