Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024: Report and Final Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-01-21
============================================================

Rónán Mullen (IND), National University of Ireland

I thank the Minister for his reply. Promptness matters and sequence matters. Again, as I explained, there is no mention of promptness in paragraph (e). The phrase "overall management" could be interpreted as almost allowing a broadcaster to give some kind of a nod to the question of the right of the person to their good name. However, the urgency of the problem is in no way addressed in the section as it stands. While I appreciate the Minister saying that he cannot always be thinking of the person against whom a defamatory statement might be made - and I hope I have not inaccurately paraphrased what he just said - and that he wants to give some comfort to those who produce live broadcasts, I get that, my proposed amendment does not negative the live broadcast defence. What I am saying is that I believe he has got the balance wrong. He is going a great distance in order to protect live broadcasts. Fair enough, they have their public value; but so also does a person's right to their good name. What I am urging upon the Minister - unsuccessfully, because he is the person with the votes behind him - that it should not be a fault of my amendment that it is specific. It is universally valid to say that if something potentially defamatory is said, the presenter of a programme should immediately intervene. That is fairness 101. There is nothing about promptness in the text of the section, and I think that is a real flaw.
It is one thing to give comfort in respect of live broadcasts - and, fair enough, I am all for that - but I think we are forgetting just how serious it is when an allegation is made in a live context. We know what it did to a presidential aspirant somewhat more than a decade ago. What can be said in a live broadcast situation can have serious consequences for a person's life. I am not saying that the Minister is not putting in any requirements in respect of broadcasters, clearly he is doing so, and the phrase "reasonable and prudent precautions" is used in this regard. It seems, however, that he is leaving out one of the most essential features. It could be argued, in the context of the wording of my amendment, that the requirement that a particular action take place once a defamatory comment has been made cannot really be described as a precaution because, to some degree, it is after the fact. I am of the view, however, that if there was a will, there would be a way to overlook that flaw in my drafting. The absence of a direct recognition of the importance of promptness and the duty of a presenter - with a producer making an intervention via that presenter's earpiece - to have a sense of duty of fairness in a particular moment is a serious omission from this otherwise very reasonable departure in law.

---

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/2026-01-21/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:31+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-01-21