Gerard Craughwell (Independent)

As the Cathaoirleach knows, I do not hear him all the time either. I was trying to adjust my hearing to hear what was going on.

Section 11 amends section 26 of the principal Act. In looking at this amending section, it strikes me that all of the safeguards that were included in the 2009 Act, which was introduced by my colleague Senator McDowell, are gone. It strikes me that this amendment is highly favourable to the media. Anybody who wants to take the good name of a person can simply base it on an allegation between two people. A media observer hears it and can then go and write a story. They are perfectly cleared provided they can wreak what is called "the public interest".

Where does the public interest start and stop? If we look in one of today's newspapers, there is an article based on innuendo and based on "dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi", no names mentioned, no pack drill. We are seeing this all the time and it is totally unacceptable. We are told in the article that the newspaper could not print the name because of defamation laws. As in all of these things, the newspaper probably left enough breadcrumbs in the article to lead to two or three people in this House or the Lower House.

It is simply unacceptable that we are taking away the safeguards that are included in section 26 of the 2009 Act. I will examine some of those safeguards, if I may. For the purposes of the Act, one must be able to show that the statement in respect of which an action was brought was published "in good faith". Publishing stories in good faith is something I do not see a lot of lately. The article published today does not strike me as being in good faith, in the first instance.

Section 26 also states: "... in the course of, or for the purpose of, the discussion of a subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit". Stories like these are typically published about high-profile people, whether they are Members of the Oireachtas or entities outside the Oireachtas. We need an extremely high bar. We cannot have a situation where people's names can be used based on some accusation made by person A about person B, which allows a media entity to then publish a story naming person B and being exempt from defamation laws purely because it was only reporting in the public interest what was heard. I am deeply concerned by what I see here.

Section 26(3) states: "The failure or refusal of a plaintiff to respond to attempts by or on behalf of the defendant, to elicit the plaintiff’s version". If somebody contacts you looking for an answer to something and you refuse to provide it, you are protected in the 2009 Act. The individual is protected. To quote section 26 again:

... the plaintiff’s version of events, shall not- (a) constitute or imply consent to the publication of the statement, or

(b) entitle the court to draw any inference therefrom.

The last part of this section states:

"court" means, in relation to a defamation action brought in the High Court, the jury, if the High Court is sitting with a jury;

"defamation action" does not include an application for a declaration order.

The point I am trying to make here is that we cannot have a situation where we ease up. The Minister mentioned earlier that he was all for free speech. I am all for free speech, too. I heard someone refer to social media earlier. On the issue of free speech on social media, we have no recourse whatsoever. People can say anything want.In a recent statement on social media, somebody said that I was a person who supported child abuse. I have no reaction and no action against that person because I do not know who they are and I have no action against the organisation that allows it to be published on its website. Yet, it is widely read. We need to raise the bar, not to make it easier under any circumstances. We need to make it extremely difficult to write an article that will identify an individual. Going in this direction with the Bill means it will be much easier to name the individual. If someone was writing the article in the Irish Independenttoday, they would actually say the name of the individual because they would be covered under this legislation. I will leave it at that for a moment.