Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024: Committee Stage (Resumed)
Seanad Éireann — 2025-11-12
============================================================

Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South

In the first instance we are talking about the new section 13 I am including in the Bill. The purpose of section 13 is to provide another defence. This time it will be referred to as a live-broadcast defence. The purpose of this defence is that a broadcaster broadcasting a live situation will have some level of protection in response to a guest on the programme who utters something that is extremely defamatory.
Obviously in this context, the person who utters the statement can still be held liable for the statement they utter. The purpose of the provision here is to provide some protection to the broadcaster in circumstances where that broadcaster may have had absolutely no knowledge of the publication that was about to be made. Again, it is a further protection and a further type of defence being provided to the media to enable them to conduct their work without fear of having defamation proceedings instituted against them when they have put in place measures to facilitate their own protection.
The amendment tabled by Senator McDowell and others,0. as he indicated, would allow for the defence to operate where there was a short time delay between the utterance of any spoken matter and its broadcast. I can understand the purpose behind the amendment. What I can say to him is that the intention of the amendment is clear and my officials are examining the matter. I may table an amendment on Report Stage to clarify that a short delay would not impact an application of the section 13 defence. However, I cannot accept the amendment tabled by Senator McDowell and others at present for a number of reasons. I will outline the reasons I cannot accept the amendment as drafted but, as I have said, I will give it some consideration because it is certainly the intention of the provision to ensure that if there is a slight delay in the broadcast it would still mean the broadcaster is able to avail of the new statutory protection.
The problem with the amendment tabled by the Senators is that the term "live broadcast" is not used in the provision. The term "live broadcast defence" is used as a description of the defence but thereafter section 13 refers to "live programming". The amendment also refers to utterances but the defence is broader and refers to publication of a statement. The amendment limits delay to being for editorial or control purposes, whereas delay could be for other reasons, for example, a technical issue. The fact that consideration is being given to the amendment, and the fact that officials in the Department are considering it, are, I hope, sufficient for the Senators who tabled the amendment. I appreciate the intention of it. It is certainly my objective to ensure that when this new section is introduced into the Defamation Act it will provide the live broadcast defence to broadcasts where there has been a slight delay. I hope this gives some satisfaction to the Senator and others.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2025-11-12/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:18+00:00
Sitting date: 2025-11-12