Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I would not have that degree of scepticism in respect of the role of fact checking and think it has been an important aspect, given the times when we have had tides of dangerous misinformation, for example, during the period of Covid. It is important that there are places where people can go to get verified information and to check the sources of information to see what may have been decontextualised and, for example, to find the origin of statistics and get that key information. I believe, therefore, that there is a role for trusted flaggers where information is being identified because there can be very real-life consequences in terms of misinformation.

Nonetheless, I believe it is important that there is a scrutiny. For example, I want to give credit toThe Journal, which has done good work in Ireland in regard to fact checking in the past. That is very useful for public debate, although we may not always like it. At times, I have been pleased to see things challenged and, at other times, I have been very disappointed regarding facts that I believed were accurate. It is important to be able to challenge and check our information, and important that there are those who are trusted to do so. However, it is also important that we have an element where we monitor how this flagging function is being used.Therefore, amendment No. 29 seeks a review of notices by trusted flaggers to detect targeted, malicious, vexatious or bad-faith submissions and to identify trusted flaggers whose status may need to be considered for revocation or review. I say this in the context of our knowledge of SLAPP lawsuits, which are lawsuits designed to silence those in the public realm and, perhaps, critics of a particular Government policy or those who present uncomfortable facts. It is important that facts be checked; however, where they are uncomfortable, it is important not to silence those who present them. In Gaza, sadly, key information from Palestinians has disappeared in certain contexts. For example, we have seen the silencing of those speaking about some of the humanitarian concerns in some contexts, not in Ireland but internationally.

In this context, it is really important to have monitoring when someone achieves trusted flagger status. One may begin as a good-faith actor and come from a credible academic context, but that context and one’s beliefs may change. People may experience radical life events that change their views. It is important that status be monitored. We cannot simply say someone can retain trusted flagger status forevermore, even if he or she has been found to have engaged in vexatious, targeted or malicious flagging that was undermining the efficacy of the system as a whole. I believe there is a role for trusted flaggers but it is appropriate that there be some monitoring of it.

All of my amendments in the group touch on this issue. Amendment No. 29 simply states that an coimisiún shall systematically review notices and identify patterns of concern, which would then trigger a process for the consideration of the revocation of trusted flagger status.

Amendment No. 30 states the review of the status may be at an coimisiún’s own initiative or based on information received by it from third parties. Again, it is not that such third parties should have the veto or the power to complain. Complaint alone should not be the basis; it is a question of triggering a process of checking for a pattern. The independence of an coimisiún in this process is crucial.

Amendment No. 31 states an coimisiún shall maintain on its website a database of entities with current or revoked trusted flagger status, including not so much information on individuals but general statistics on the activity of flaggers. Where a trusted flagger has been identified as having engaged in malicious or vexatious flagging in another EU country, it will be useful for us to see that same pattern – for example, where an organisation’s credibility becomes questionable.

Amendment No. 33 pertains to the period of time. It is another case of 28 days versus 14 days. I always feel 14 days goes fast but 28 days allows an appropriate time for a response.

Amendment No. 34 suggests the commission may initiate an investigation under section 41, either on its own initiative or based on information it may have received. There may be a wide number of trusted flaggers in operation. It may be that concerned members of the public, perhaps in other parts of Europe, will have identified issues of concern over the actions of a trusted flagger or the credibility or motivation of a flagger if problematic. Such information may be useful to the commission in deciding to review status, as under amendment No. 30, or in initiating an investigation, as under amendment No. 34.

I hope the Minister of State will regard these proposals as constructive ones simply to ensure the trusted flagger system will be as effective as possible.