Gerard Craughwell (Independent)

It is a criminal offence and yet we see the term "Garda sources" in the media constantly. In that particular story, three or four Garda sources were quoted without naming any. Of course, if you were to take a criminal case against that particular publication, it would claim journalistic privilege. The journalist would say that he or she is not releasing his or her sources but that he or she got the information from a garda and believes it to be true. That journalist might never have got that information from a garda. The Garda might know nothing about it. That story was printed on that Monday deliberately to impact the election prospects of a candidate in the current presidential election. It has to be a criminal offence to try to influence the outcome of an election by printing a story that had no basis. Of course, the candidate in question had to make a statement the following day. It is rather sad that is the way it went.

Moving on to social media, some of the stuff being said on social media about another candidate in the presidential election is absolutely outrageous. The claims that are being made as factual are absolutely outrageous but those making these claims are anonymous. As Senator McDowell referred to, it is people sitting in their box rooms or wherever publishing blogs they believe to be 100% accurate and 100% true and believing that people have a right to know and that they are saying what they are saying in good faith. Under section 26 of the 2009 Act, you have some cover. It is very little. You have to jump over a number of hurdles before you can go anywhere with the thing.I have heard in this House statements, particularly when we talk about migration issues, that lead to misinterpretation in social media and all sorts of allegations, and we finish up with something like we had last night in Citywest. Again, a statement made here might refer to one or two things and it is taken out of context on social media.

Last week, I spoke about a teacher accused of interfering with a child where some years later it turned out there had been no interference with the child. The teacher in question looked for a timetable and the school was somewhat reluctant, based on there being no smoke without fire and there having to be something, even though the investigation showed nothing. I discussed this at the weekend with some friends and I said it was outrageous that the teacher was not immediately handed a timetable and reinstated on the staff. The answer I got back was to hang on a minute because that school probably had 300 or 400 parents who were concerned, and the concerns of the parents had to be taken into account before the teacher would be reinstated. My uncle had a saying that the sped arrow and the spoken word can never be retrieved. I believe the same applies when it comes to the written word.

The Minister rightly points out that we all have recourse to the courts to find out who on social media has just made some outrageous comment about one or other of us in the House or about a member of the public. Not everybody can afford to go to the courts. Going to the courts is not for the faint-hearted. Why should we have to go to the courts to find out who is making statements about us? People using social media can use any ridiculous name they want but why is it not mandatory that their full details be available in the event of a statement being made? Anybody in the House could then go to the Garda and say the person using this particular handle on social media was making outrageous claims about them and could ask the Garda to go and do something about it. Are we afraid of the social media companies? They are the ones with the money. They are the ones who should be held liable for what is published on their platforms and I do not know why they are not.

I know the Minister has sat through quite a lot this afternoon so I will make just one more comment. We all in this House get emails now almost daily. There are some people who write to me, and because I look at the email address I can see they are writing to everybody in the House, and they are making outrageous claims about Ministers, the President, the European Union and all sorts of things. Is this publishing? Once it is sent to more than one person, it is not an email to me but to the entire Houses of the Oireachtas. Is this regarded as publishing? If it is, what recourse does the President of Ireland or the Commissioner in Europe have against the person? They are fortunate insofar as they can afford to take them on. What is the point of taking on somebody who has nothing? I do not know whether the Minister remembers a Senator here who was subjected to horrendous interference and trolling on the Internet. She eventually got the case to court and they eventually identified the individual. He was brought to court on criminal charges. When that Senator came to defending her name, the same guy did not have two red cents to rub together. Defamation is for the brave and for anybody who wants to take it on but we should set the bar high for those who publish. The dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean leí type of defence is simply not good enough, in my belief.