Michael McDowell (Independent)

I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider this particular amendment. This amendment to the Act of 2009 was tendered in the course of the Dáil debate by the Minister. It is not referred to, as far as I can see, in the original explanatory memorandum and it actually promises a very radical effect of change in the defamation law of this country. The House should be made aware that back in 2006 and 2007, when the 2009 legislation was being prepared and was actually commenced in this House, I remember sitting where the Minister is now and somewhere behind where Senator Conway is. I remember an impassioned speech against section 26 of the original Bill being made by none other than Senator David Norris. He claimed that I was opening the floodgates to the defamation of public figures and he was passionate in his condemnation of the reform I proposed at that time. It is important to put on the record of the House what the existing law is. It is as follows:

26.— (1) It shall be a defence (to be known, and in this section referred to, as the “ defence of fair and reasonable publication ”) [Mark the words, "fair" and "reasonable"] to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that—

(a) the statement in respect of which the action was brought was published—

(i) in good faith, and

(ii) 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,

On that, it is not just enough that it is public interest but that it is for public benefit as well and that it was done in good faith. Those are the ingredients of the law at the moment. The subsection continues:

(b) in all of the circumstances of the case, the manner and extent of publication of the statement did not exceed that which was reasonably sufficient,

There is a threshold in the existing law of the land, as we stand here now. It says that the defence of fair and reasonable publication was contingent on the establishment by the defendant that the manner in which the matter was reported, or the statement that was made, did not exceed that which was reasonably sufficient, and, "(c) in all of the circumstances of the case, it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement". The journalist or the newspaper has to say it was fair and reasonable to publish this statement. That is the law as we have it at the moment.

Recently, we had the case, to which the Minister tangentially referred, about whether it was fair to criticise Gerry Adams in the way the BBC did. The jury said it was not but that is being abolished now. The fairness test is being taken out of defamation law. Subsection 2 states:

(2) For the purposes of this section, the court shall, in determining whether it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement concerned, take into account such matters as the court considers relevant including any or all of the following:

(a) the extent to which the statement concerned refers to the performance by the person of his or her public functions;

That is an issue. Does this statement concern the performance by a person of his or her public functions? The subsection continues:

(b) the seriousness of any allegations made in the statement; [We will not bring seriousness into our law at all, except for companies]

(c) the context and content (including the language used) of the statement;

(d) the extent to which the statement drew a distinction between suspicions, allegations and facts;

Let us contemplate that. The court is required at present, whether it is a jury trial or a non-jury trial, to ask if a statement drew a distinction between suspicions, allegations and facts. The subsection goes on:

(e) the extent to which there were exceptional circumstances that necessitated the publication of the statement on the date of publication; [In other words, was there urgency, that this story be published on the day]

(f) in the case of a statement published in a periodical by a person who, at the time of publication, was a member of the Press Council, the extent to which the person adhered to the code of standards of the Press Council and abided by determinations of the Press Ombudsman and determinations of the Press Council;

This had the effect of asking newspapers if they followed the standards of the Press Council and complied with its recommendations or demands for retractions. The subsection continues:

(g) in the case of a statement published in a periodical by a person who, at the time of publication, was not a member of the Press Council, the extent to which the publisher of the periodical adhered to standards equivalent to the standards specified in paragraph (f);

In other words, if there was an English newspaper or magazine, did if follow the kinds of standards that the Irish Press Council put in place? Those standards are really important. They include checking the facts and putting the story to the person who is being written about. Those are all part of our law as it stands. The subsection continues:

(h) the extent to which the plaintiff’s version of events [That is the person about whom the story is written] was represented in the publication concerned and given the same or similar prominence as was given to the statement concerned;

We just have to go back to the Adams case and we can see that his denials were published but the allegations were given far greater prominence. The subsection concludes:

(i) if the plaintiff’s version of events was not so represented, the extent to which a reasonable attempt was made by the publisher to obtain and publish a response from that person; and

(j) the attempts made, and the means used, by the defendant to verify the assertions and allegations concerning the plaintiff in the statement.

In other words, there is a duty of verification. That is in the law as it currently stands. None of this will be the law if we pass this Bill in the form that the Minister is proposing. The fairness will go out, as does the question of whether an attempt was made to verify a story. All of that is swept aside.

Senator Craughwell earlier noted the following:

(3) The failure or refusal of a plaintiff to respond to attempts by or on behalf of the defendant, to elicit 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.

As has happened on many occasions to many people in public life, you are told a publication intends publishing tomorrow the following about you and it is giving you a chance to respond. If you then ring your solicitor and he says under no circumstances respond because the publication will publish a denial story stating Senator Joe Soap denies allegations of corruption, that is not permissible as an argument in court as the law presently stands. In other words, if you are told by your lawyer that something is false but if you start mud wrestling with the journalist in question and say it is untrue, you will end up facing a story stating that Senator Joe Soap has denied an allegation by X, Y or Z that he did or did not do X, Y or Z, was or was not corrupt or whatever it may be. That is the law as we have it.

It is not an accident that is the law. The generation of section 26 was done with the greatest of care and, without divulging Cabinet confidentiality, it engaged the minds of Ministers at great length at the time. They could see that if we do what the Minister is now proposing, huge consequences would follow for people in public life in particular. That is the law that we have established today. Some of it has been difficult to rely on by defendants in jury cases because the jury would say that, at the end of the day, it was not fair. That is the end of the matter.

What we are proposing now to put in instead of it, and I ask Members of this House to look at it very carefully, is that "it shall be a defence [to be known as defence of publication on a matter of public interest - What is different? The phrase "fair and reasonable" has been dropped. That is just the title of the defence] to a defamation action for a defendant to prove" in all the circumstances of the case three things: the statement in respect of which the action was brought was on a matter of public interest; the defendant reasonably believed that publishing this statement was in the public interest; and the statement was published in good faith. If somebody goes to a journalist and accuses a TD, Minister, Senator, or anybody else in public life for that matter, of very grave wrongdoing, from child abuse, as mentioned by Senator Craughwell, to public corruption of one kind or another, those three things can be established by the defendant. First is that the statement in respect of which the action was brought was on a matter of public interest. It would be of huge public interest by definition if one of us or a Member of the Dáil or a member of the Government had acted corruptly or was corrupt, so you are over that hurdle before you start. The second point is that the statement in respect of which the action was brought was on a matter of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed that the statement was in the public interest. If a Minister is accused of corruption, is a journalist or newspaper not very easily in a position to say that if this accusation has been made, it is in the public interest that it should be disclosed? For instance, if a well-placed member of An Garda Síochána goes to a newspaper or journalist and says Minister X is corrupt or Minister Y, although Minister for children, has a record like that which was alleged against Senator Craughwell, that is in the public interest and publishing it is undoubtedly in the public interest because the public is entitled to know that a member of An Garda Síochána believes that that particular person is a danger to children. The third point is that the statement was published in good faith. What does that mean? Does it mean that the journalist believed the garda who blackened the public figure? All three ingredients are then established by proof: I believed it was true, it came from a credible source and, in view of the nature of the charge, it is in the public interest that the public knows about it.

That is the test that this Minister is putting before us in this House in future to establish a defence of publication in the public interest. Any newspaper which satisfies those things, that it in good faith believes it, it has a good source for it, the nature of the charge is of very great public importance and it is important that the public should know that a senior garda suspects a person of that offence, then it can publish. There is no requirement in the Minister's provision that the story has to be bounced off the person who is going to be defamed - none whatsoever. You do not even have to lift the phone to him as long as you believe in good faith that the story you have been given by a member of An Garda Síochána is true, that it is in the public interest, if it is true, that the public should know about it, and the matter is one which should be published in the public interest. If I as a journalist received information that gardaí were investigating a Minister in the present Cabinet for corruption, first of all, I might ask the garda if they were sure of what their accusation is, and if they said "Yes", I would then ask if it was in the public interest. By definition, it is. I would then ask if I could publish it in good faith, and of course I can because I believe it is true. That is the test that this Bill is proposing.

The existing law was carefully calibrated to provide some balance. It means that if those three things are satisfied tomorrow, any journalist can publish a story on the front page of any newspaper and there is a good defence to establish those three points. If a Minister, Deputy, Senator bishop or whoever you want faces that headline, it is a good defence and the end of the matter if the journalist and editor say they believe it to be true, it is obviously in the public interest and publication of it is in the public interest. They can state they did not even bother to ring the individual in question because of the evidence they had.They saw the Garda file and that was enough for them. They do not think the gardaí would have invented this, so there it is. It goes on the front page, uncontradicted.

I will go back to what the law is at the moment. Section 26 refers to "fair and reasonable publication". It has to be fair. What is fairness in this context? The fact the gardaí suspect you of something should be drawn to the attention of the people at large - is that fair? Is it consistent with, for instance, the presumption of innocence that because gardaí suspect a person in public life of doing something wrong, that can be published without more?

Section 26(1)(a)(ii) states it must be "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". It is important under present law that the journalist states it has to be dealt with now because it is for the public benefit that it be dealt with now. It is not down the road when there will be a jury trial about it; we are entitled to know about it now because that is what the gardaí suspect.

Section 26(1)(b) stipulates that "in all of the circumstances of the case, the manner and extent of publication of the statement did not exceed that which was reasonably sufficient". Front-page story or front-page headlines - that is gone as a requirement.

Section 26(1)(c)is the crucial one. It states that "in all of the circumstances of the case, it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement". Is it fair and reasonable to publish a statement that a public figure is suspected by somebody else of corruption or subject to allegations by somebody else, whether a garda, Opposition TD or whoever, relating to corruption? Is it fair to put that into the public domain without some form of legal adjudication as to whether it is true and without the matter going through the court process, at the very least?

Let us then look at the additional protections in the existing section 26(2). It states:

For the purposes of this section, the court shall, [must - this is not an option for the court] in determining whether it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement concerned, take into account such matters as the court considers relevant including any or all of the following: (a)the extent to which the statement concerned refers to the performance by the person of his or her public functions;

(b) the seriousness of any allegations made in the statement;

(c)the context and content (including the language used) of the statement;

(d) the extent to which the statement drew a distinction between suspicions, allegations and facts;

The story must not be written as "Senator X corruption allegation"; the story and statement must draw "a distinction between suspicions, allegations and facts". Section 26(2) then refers to:

(e) the extent to which there were exceptional circumstances that necessitated the publication of the statement on the date of publication;

If, for instance, an allegation of corruption or child abuse was made, why publish it now? Why not leave it to a jury? Here is a very good point: when somebody is accused of sexual assault and brought before the courts, they are given anonymity for rape charges, pending the outcome of the case. Under the Minister's version, if so-and-so is suspected of rape or there is an allegation of rape against X or Y, a public person, that person's anonymity does not have to be respected because there is no court proceeding in existence.

Then there is the business about the Press Council. The Press Council has laid down a code of conduct for journalists. It requires them not to publish things which could seriously damage other people unless they conduct an investigation of the matter themselves and unless they afford the person about whom they will write the right to rebut what was said or to convince them it was false. That is all guaranteed under the existing law.

Section 26(2) goes on to refer to:

(h)the extent to which the plaintiff’s version of events was represented in the publication concerned and given the same or similar prominence as was given to the statement concerned;

It is very easy to write a story. The gardaí say X, Y or Z. They are relying on a whole series of things. Set that out in the story and then say at the end of it, "Senator So-and-So denied it". Under existing law, someone is presumed to read the whole thing and the fact the person denied it is thrown in at the end, but the story is all over the front page of the newspaper. The subsection continues:

(i)if the plaintiff’s version of events was not so represented, the extent to which a reasonable attempt was made by the publisher to obtain and publish a response from that person;

That is gone too. That is no longer part of this defence. What used to be fair and reasonable, is now public interest only.

The next paragraph is:

(j) the attempts made, and the means used, by the defendant to verify the assertions and allegations concerning the plaintiff in the statement.

A duty is cast by our law at the moment on the person publishing the statement to investigate it, rather than simply say: "The gardaí say such and such" or "This woman says that she was raped" or "This man says he was raped" and then say:

As far as we're concerned that's enough to go on. We believe him. We had an interview with him in the newspaper office. We believe him in good faith and we believe that the public should know about this.

This is the brave new world the Minister is trying to persuade this House and Parliament to bring about.

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 of events, shall not— (a)constitute or imply consent to the publication of the statement [That is obvious. If you say you are not answering that, it does not mean you are consenting to its being published], or

(b) [and this is crucial] entitle the court to draw any [adverse] inference...

You may say you are not answering or have no comment, or you simply do not respond to a message left on your phone, saying "We intend publishing the following about you tomorrow". This happens, by the way. This is not me imagining situations. It happens weekly in our Republic that people get messages of that kind from investigative journalists, saying "We're publishing this and we're giving you an opportunity to deny it." At the moment, they know that if the person does not reply, they cannot rely on that in the court for any purpose whatsoever. That is the law. There is a difference in making no comment under the proposed legislation because they will be able to publish "Senator accused of rape", with the details of the allegation they believe to be true, add that the Senator in question said "No comment" and stick it on the front page as their lead story. That is where we are going and nobody should be under any illusion about that.Why we are changing the law to permit this, I do not know. As I said to the Minister before, the present formulation was considered clumsy, but there are guarantees in it which are hugely valuable to people about whom public interest defamation may or may not be published. There are very serious safeguards which curtail media behaviour and impose good manners, such as Press Council standards, on them. All of that is to be swept away. It will not be any good saying in court, "Why didn't you apply Press Council standards and procedures and advice to the way in which you handled this story?" It will not be any good to say that because the fairness requirement is gone. It has gone out of the window. Instead, we will have a brave new world where somebody will be able to say, "I have it on good authority from a member of An Garda Síochána, who perhaps should never have revealed this to me, but I have seen the file, and there are reasons to believe that Minister so-and-so or whoever is guilty of corruption."

Do gardaí leak files? Yes, they do, on occasion. I was amazed way back to the time when I was Attorney General that a file was leaked to a particular newspaper and journalist that there was somebody carrying out abortions in Ireland. That file, by the way, that file was handed over in a city centre pub, as we later found out. The next thing that happened was that women who were alleged to have had the abortions carried out - this was prior to the repeal of the eighth amendment - had a journalist knocking on their doors asking them to confirm that they had abortions by this doctor. Do gardaí leak files? Yes, they do. Thank God, the great majority of gardaí do not leak files and comply with their duty of secrecy and confidentiality under the Official Secrets Act, the Garda code and the Garda Síochána Act. There are often cases, however, where people who are frustrated that prosecutions are not be authorised and that the DPP said "No" and the evidence is not sufficient. They think, "I will just throw it at a journalist and see if the journalist would make something of it, and damned if that person is going to get away with this misbehaviour." That is the kind of thing that happens. It is not just a matter of police activity; it is right across the board. It is people who are suspected of professional misconduct. Anybody in that situation is vulnerable to a file landing of the desk of a journalist alleging gross misbehaviour or gross criminal misconduct. Of course, the Minister's amendment will facilitate a newspaper to publish that because it is in the public interest that there is serious suspicion about a particular person in public life. It is in the public interest that they should know that. The publisher has looked at file and feels convinced by what he has seen, without the other party’s denials being there, that it is probably true. If it is true as the publisher believes, the public should know about it. Publication in the public interest is satisfied. Good faith is satisfied because the person believes it to be true and that it is wrong that this person should remain a Minister, TD, Senator or whatever else if all this information which they have been given in confidence is true.

Senator Craughwell made a hugely important point. This very day in one newspaper a senior politician is stated to have fronted up a charitable event where the money was misappropriated and where it was only devoted to the charitable object after enquiries were made. That is a very serious allegation to make about somebody. I am sure in the corridors of this House there are people wondering who that is. It is a perfectly natural inquiry to make. What would stop somebody from publishing that politician's name this morning if the Minister's amendment becomes law? It is clearly in the public interest that, where a politician fronts up a charitable event, raises substantial money and the money is not applied for the purpose for which it is raised, that should be stated and publicly known. It is clearly in the public interest that, if that politician is so senior as to have authority or have had authority and those were the person's standards, that should be known as well. I have no doubt that the journalist who published that story today believes that every fact that he or she put in their story which we are reading about is true. All the three ingredients in the Minister's formulation of publication on a matter of public interest are satisfied. It does not matter whether it is fair or reasonable to publish it. The concept of fairness is taken out of the equation. It is just belief that the public interest requires it and good faith on the part of the person publishing it - in other words, an absence of bad faith. It would be totally different under the Minister's formulation if the person knew it was false. However, where the person believes it is true, good faith in its publication is satisfied if the matter is of such public import that the public should be told about it.

We are given a choice in this House, a choice that was not adequately debated in the House below, as to whether this should or should not be the new law in Ireland, that it should be possible to publish allegations which are of sufficient gravity to cross the public interest threshold in relation to publication, that are believed by a journalist or a newspaper to be true, and that the newspaper reasonably believed that publishing the statement was in the public interest. Let us look at a fairly simple situation. One public figure alleges that another public figure has behaved corruptly. For example, in a coalition government, one Minister accuses another of behaving corruptly in relation to the second Minister's functions as a Minister. He goes to a journalist and says, "I am fairly satisfied that Minister X received money or made that decision because his son or daughter has stood to gain from it, and here is why I believe that." The first Minister is therefore under suspicion, and it could be credible suspicion, of corruption.All of the ingredients in subsection (1) of the Minister's new section 26, as proposed, are satisfied. There is no obligation to bounce it off the victim of that statement, if it is a defamatory statement and is untrue. The journalist can say with abandonment, "I put this to Minister B and he failed to respond for the last three days." That carries with it, in many people's eyes, the suggestion that there must be fire because there is smoke there. So, the journalist is publishing Minister B's name and the name of the accuser, although they might give the name of the accuser some confidentiality because he was their source, which is fair too. There is no breach of that at all. Is this the standard we want to give to our journalists in future?

The Defamation Bill introduced in 2006 was extremely carefully calibrated. It looked around the corners and asked itself what would be the outcome in Irish law of changing the law at that time to accommodate what was roughly the Reynolds defence in Britain. The balance struck was the balance I have outlined to the House. Now, we say that was the wrong balance. It is too clumsy, too difficult and too constraining on free expression on the part of the media. Why force the media to investigate the matter themselves? Why immunise a Minister who says he is not responding to an inquiry on advice from his lawyers and who does not even return the pressman's call? Why give the media the right to say, "Minister so-and-so was contacted and given three days to respond and we have not heard a word"? Why do that? Is that the standard we actually want to have?

As Senator Craughwell has said, we have this very day an example of a newspaper publishing a story about a senior politician which looks extremely unfavourable to that politician and has all the characteristics of a major defamation, if any of it is untrue. However, the newspaper then says to the public that for legal reasons, it is not naming that politician. What are the legal reasons? The legal reasons are that the existing section 26 does not accommodate it in naming the politician. That is where the protection lies. Today, if we pass this particular section, we are saying those safeguards no longer exist.

I assure the Minister that all of this was discussed and debated in great detail at the time. For instance, the provision that failure to deny a story could never be relied upon was put into our law for very good reason. "Let us see him deny it" is the oldest journalistic trick in the book because the journalist can then say the Minister denies corruption, rape or whatever it is and shove that on the front of a newspaper, or even that the Minister says "No comment" on the record when confronted with allegations of a very serious kind. We put that into law because it was necessary to put it into law. It was a necessary protection, particularly for people in the public eye, so they would not be ambushed by telephone messages saying "We intend to publish the following about you and want to hear from you by Saturday as our Sunday edition will be carrying this story."

I cannot understand how anybody would think that the terms of the existing section 26 are unfair or unreasonable. Who is demanding that the politician written about in today's Irish Independentshould be identifiable today? Who is demanding that? Is it the media? Is it the public? Is it curiosity? If that is true, we had better know who it is immediately because An Garda Síochána is investigating it, believe it or not. It is not that the Garda has found it is true, but that it is investigating whether a senior politician fronted up for a charitable event and the money did not end up going to its charitable purpose. Why not name the politician? What protection is the Minister offering them? Absolutely zero.

Why was this amendment to section 11 not much more widely discussed before it was made, and the terms of it and its implications more widely understood? I have put this in terms which are designed to appeal to Members of this House because they can see very clearly that they could be in the firing line, as could Members of the Dáil and members of the Cabinet. I put it in those terms without apology. It was clear from section 26(2)(a), which says that one of the matters the court must take into account is "the extent to which the statement concerned refers to the performance by the person of his or her public functions". However, this does not just apply to politicians. It applies to senior clergymen. It applies to child protection officers. It even applies, dare I say it, to members of An Garda Síochána. It applies to teachers, professors and university heads. It applies to people down the authority pecking order in the public service, for example, passport officers alleged to have taken a bribe. This protection applies right across the board. What the Minister is proposing to do is radically change this section.

Because I was involved in the political compromise and authorship of the existing section 26, I do not claim it is perfect. I can see that, to some extent, it requires some reform. I am happy to debate with anybody changing any of the existing protections or qualifying them in any way. However, when I am confronted with a proposal to sweep away virtually all the defences the ordinary citizen, or a person in public life at whatever level, has in the face of a public interest test of the kind proposed by the Minister, I have to say this goes far too far.It is not balanced at all. If the Minister says it is too restrictive, I could go along with him in making the case to this House that it is too restrictive for any of the following reasons: this kind of publication is being wrongly inhibited; juries are confused by some of the language in the existing section 26; it is too long; it is too clumsy; or the reference to the Press Council is otiose and redundant. I will listen to any argument, but I cannot accept an argument that none of this should remain our law and should be entirely swept aside.

I do not think its implications were adequately debated in Dáil Éireann. If this afternoon the Members of Dáil Éireann looked at today's Irish Independentand realised that, had the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, managed to get this through the Seanad, that person would have been named this morning, they might wonder whether we were wise to permit such a change in our defamation law.

I have made my points. I am not saying that section 26 is perfect. I am quite happy to acknowledge that somebody could in good faith believe it required amendment. However, the radical chopping down of most of the tree to leave it as simply a matter of public interest, publication in good faith and the requirement that its publication was believed to be in the public interest is a ridiculously low standard to apply if every other constraint in the current law is taken away at the same time.

I can well imagine juries taking a bit of a run at the present law and saying it was all very well but it was not really fair and that is the end of it. Even if the word "fair" was recast to make it clear to juries what was involved, I would happily debate that and see if there was a formulation that was better. However, I cannot accept the proposition that the amendment proposed by the Minister would have anything except really harmful effects on public affairs in Ireland.

I make one last point. In the context of the presidential election and the recent nomination process, very vicious things were written, not just the one online that Senator Craughwell described. Very vicious things were said. It struck me: who would put their head in the firing line to receive such vicious, often defamatory obloquy anonymously online about them? Who would go into public life if journalists are given a free potshot at them as long as they can invoke the three grounds of the Minister's proposed section 26? Would it not be wiser to halt and reconsider whether the whole process of liberalisation, about which I wrote in today's edition of The Irish Times, can go too far? It can get to the point where democratic values are under threat and where participation in public life is unsustainable psychologically and from a family point of view to people who are tempted to play their part as citizens in the democratic life of the State. It cannot be allowed to have that effect. As someone who is on the wrong side of public opinion on occasion, I get to understand how intense the blizzard can be. In addition to that, people may now write whatever they like provided it is a matter of public interest, that the defendant reasonably believed the publication was in the public interest and that the defendant published it in good faith. In future, those will be the only criteria for assaulting people in public life and destroying their reputations.

What it is the media want to publish now that they are being inhibited from publishing? Today's Irish Independentstory is a very good guide to that. If the Minister's amendment had been made, the name of that woman or man would have been a front-page story in the Irish Independentand tomorrow in all the newspapers and in broadcast media. If that story was given national prominence identifying him, the attitude would be one of let us see him deny it, let us see him defend it, let us see him pick up the pieces of what is left, and it is in the public interest American style.

I really ask the Minister to drop this amendment and let Dáil Éireann have a second look at what he is proposing. I am not impressed by the fact that there was little or no opposition to it in Dáil Éireann. In that Chamber, there is a certain cowardice and deference to the media, and fear that if the media say X or Y, their party, their personal reputation or whatever will suffer, and if the media demand this, it should be done. If the Minister is willing to go along with it, so be it. However, both Houses and the justice committee in particular should revisit this before it becomes law. Once it is law, the dam is burst and trying to put it back will be virtually impossible because the media will say this is great, they now have free-fire conditions against people whom they disapprove of in public life, let us see them sue the media in future.

Those in the Sinn Féin Party are fond of suing people and they did not oppose this in Dáil Éireann - big surprise. I will leave it at that.