Rónán Mullen
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“The fun side of her personality certainly came out during her participation in "Strictly Come Dancing". I think she had the humility to see that even if on occasions she could be seen as cutting a slightly absurd figure, she used that to generate affection and attention for the points of view she held a deep conviction for.”
“I also welcome our French dignitary and say, Vive la France ce soir et vive le Chemin de St. Jacques en France, I would say, à titre personnel. I do not think I was the only one in this House who was very shocked and upset by the news of the murder of Ann Widdecombe last Friday.”
“This Bill, I think, is the opportunity for the Government to recognise that it is not just extreme or violent pornography that is the problem.”
“Teresa's in Clarendon Street at 12.45 p.m. It is time for us all to reflect on the risks people in public life face, not just during their parliamentary careers but afterwards as well. Let us hope for a more secure and safer society for us all where people can express their ideas in a forthright and honest way and not be harmed for that.”
“He is so worried about adult privacy rights that he is not willing to commit to what is needed to protect children from being able to access pornography now. There is one thing the Minister of State did not say. He said that there is already existing online safety regulation restricting access to pornography, but is it working?”
“I acknowledge the work done by Coimisiún na Meán as the regulator in the online space. With all it has on, its role requiring parental controls, reporting, flagging and complaint mechanisms is important. It is undoubtedly attempting to fulfil its remit in demanding age assurance mechanisms of online platforms.”
The complete record
Every one of 391 lines we hold for Rónán Mullen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
“What concerns me, however, is that two legal advocacy bodies, one of which I understand receives quite a lot of money from foreign sources and the other of which receives a considerable amount of money from the taxpayer, are basically pushing an idea that certain approaches on schools are somehow legally mandated. Their narrative on this is cloaked in the language of legality. In the guide, it states, “your school must make every effort to update your name and pronoun in relevant systems and documents". A layperson reading this would think that the laws in this area are clear, have been passed and that things have changed and everything in the guide is mandated. This is pure dishonesty on the part of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and IHREC to the extent that they stand behind such an approach.”
“Last week, I spotted something in The Irish Times relating to a guide produced by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, with support from the State's human rights watchdog, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC. Basically, it stated that schools must use the preferred name and pronouns of transgender students who should also be allowed to use the bathroom of their preferred gender. This is all in this guide on the rights of trans people. We all agree that, when it comes to schools, there should be an approach of compassion, gentleness and awareness of the many challenges that children who are confused about their gender face.”
“This remedy, like many others, is prone to manipulation by big brother and therefore free speech advocates must help to ensure that any legislation controlling its use is appropriately tempered. Finally, I would say in the spirit of Carthago delenda est that sooner or later if we are going to get to grips with the problem facing our society, pornography must be brought online. We must not stop saying that just because it seems like a long-term goal.”
“The question is how serious we are about this. An immediate, short-term solution will sharpen the wits of big tech and make them come up, more quickly, with better solutions. They created the problem and they must solve it if they want AI chatbots to survive. The second, almost immediately applicable, solution is mandatory watermarking of AI outputs whereby providers of generative AI systems automatically embed an identifiable watermark into every piece of content that AI creates. In short, if something is created, it should be capable of being traced back to its creator. I do not know the degree to which the EU AI Act will mandate this but it is a necessary requirement on all AI graphic output and is implementable. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
“The so-called nudification controversy about generative online chatbots, nonconsenual deepfakes and sexualised images, including those of children, deserves an immediate response from us as legislators. Down the road we will have an EU AI Act although it will not be fully effective until the autumn. That may help but what can we do now? I propose two things, the first of which is an emergency solution banning AI online chatbots from producing nude images. It is a partial solution. It is not comprehensive but it would curb overt explicit output by enforcing stricter safeguards like prompt filters or output scanners that would detect and block nudity. Of course there will be problems and it may prevent some innovation. Enforcement, of course, will rely on AI self-policing but we can talk ourselves out of any solution if we wish.”
“I join my colleague Senator Joe Conway in paying tribute to the late John Quinn and extend my condolences to John's family. The documentary "Ballyfin - A Boarding School Memory" was very well received more than 30 years ago. John will be missed by a friend of mine, namely Helen Murphy of Port Road in Killarney, who corresponded with him regularly. I also take the opportunity to recall Mary White, a former Senator who has departed this life. Mary served in the Seanad and myself and Senator Martin Conway had the pleasure of serving alongside her. I am sure we will be paying tribute to her in due course but I want to extend my condolences to her husband, Padraic, her daughter, Cliona, and her friends and family.”
“It needs to be debated and I ask that the Minister come to this House in the new year to discuss this proposal, to see if it is the best way, if there are problems with it and whether such problems can be surmounted.”
“All of that is clear but when the Minister says that the solution to this, taking people's real concern about child protection in particular into account, is a proposed trialling of a digital wallet system, we must ask if that is the only way. There are worries about excessive State surveillance in people's lives. There are also worries about hacking and the State's inability to manage data. While we absolutely must tackle those problems and ensure we have solutions, I would like to hear from the Minister whether the digital wallet system is the only way of dealing with this problem. I would not like to think that because people's concern is so strong about child protection, this would now be waved in our faces and expected to be pushed through easily.”
“I know that the Minister for communications, Deputy O'Donovan, has said that he will hold that particular option in reserve but the jury is no longer out on the impact of social media on young children. It is harming their concentration, self-esteem and mental health. The risks posed by online bullying, pornography, predatory advertising and other types of predation are numerous. We must be capable of holding two ideas in our minds at the same time. We must tackle young people's access to social media and to certain free and log-in based services. The creation of multiple online identities for use by domestic and foreign activists in anonymity is a problem. Complete anonymity online is not possible because people must be traceable in order to be accountable legally, criminally or civilly, for what they say or do.”
“First, I endorse what Senator Rabbitte had to say and commend her on it. Only this morning, I was talking to a dear friend whose parent with dementia has had to go into hospital because of a fall. This person is upset at having a pad put on during the night, not because the person is not capable of indicating a desire to go to the toilet but because that is seen as the easier way to manage a patient in the hospital. That is just one example of a very complex issue. It is an example of low standards in a high-spending economy. We still have a long way to go but I commend Senator Rabbitte on what she said earlier and I support her fully. I am very pleased about Australia's move to ban social media access for those under 16. We need to follow carefully what goes on in that country.”
“In fact, it might even be the case that it is easier to imagine cases where a person's request for an identification order might fail but that person's request might not be so egregious that the court would not consider making the parties go back to back on the costs, at the very least, when, again, one considers the probably disproportionate power and resources involved. I also very much support what Senator McDowell said about guaranteeing avoiding any of the problems around hearsay, so that if an identification order is made, the successful applicant in such a case should not have to jump through further, perhaps costly, legal hoops to bring that relevant point before the court in any defamation action.”
“It is almost impossible to imagine circumstances where it would be right or seem right to make an identification order because it is relevant to defamation proceedings and then leave the successful applicant with the costs. We have had a number of moments during the debate on this legislation where it really would be good to hear a practical example of the mischief the Minister is seeking to prevent or address. I cannot think of a situation where that could be just. To put it in there almost reminds the courts of what they might want to do in situations like that, whereas the balance should surely be very much in the direction of it being the norm that costs follow the event in relation to such an application.”
“That would result in a very pyrrhic victory for an applicant. As Senator McDowell said, the normal principle is that costs follow the event. I presume that is his proposed wording states, "The court may order ... the relevant internet service provider", as opposed the phrase "the court shall" being used. I presume that allowing the courts to do their work normally means that the costs follow the event, and that the amendment does not seek to displace the courts' normal jurisdiction and approach in those matters by not proposing the use of the word "shall". It is vital that the Minister's proposed section 22(45)(5) goes. One hopes that the courts would not follow it, quite frankly.”
“Is it arguable that if the word "shall" is substituted for "may", then the word "only" should be removed? That occurred to me as I listened to Senator McDowell explaining the amendment. It is a question rather than a statement. Amendment No. 26 proposes the substitution of a new section 22(45)(5) that would read, "The court may order that the relevant internet service provider pay any or all of the applicant’s costs". I could not agree more with the proposal that the existing lines 38 to 42 be deleted in favour of Senator McDowell's proposed wording. In fact, I am astonished that the Minister, in his proposed section, would open up the possibility that a court, having possibly made an identification order, would then punish the applicant and potentially leave them with the costs.”
“On the face of it, I am quite happy that "a claim by the applicant in any defamation proceedings against the anonymous publisher that the statement is defamatory [and could] ... succeed at trial" would be sufficient. I would prefer to leave it at that low bar, but, again, Senator McDowell may have good reasons for the proposal. I look forward to hearing more about it. I support the other amendments, in particular the reference to page 22, line 20, where Senator McDowell proposes the substitution of the word "shall" for "may". I have a question in relation to that. If the Minister were minded to accept the amendment, the section would read, "A court [shall] ... make an identification order only where it considers", etc. Were the word "only" to remain, would that in some way weaken the obligation of the court to make an order?”
“It is relevant that the High Court would have the knowledge of the seriousness of the situation that would enable it to determine properly whether to make such an order. If you imagine circumstances where, in the context of defamation proceedings, something else is said online by a defendant that is itself alleged to be defamatory, that is the kind of thing that would surely involve exemplary damages, for example. Again, that seems to be another reason the High Court, having seisin of the principal defamation action, should also consider and be enabled to consider it appropriate that it would make a determination about the order sought regarding the identification order. I have some questions - and perhaps I was not listening closely enough - as to why Senator McDowell is proposing the insertion of the word "seriously".”
“I have some questions too, which I maybe should have posed to him earlier, that may be answered in the course of this debate. The amendment the Senator tabled on the possibility of a concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court makes great sense. He pointed out that this should not give rise to further legal costs; quite the contrary. If one imagines a High Court with seisin of a defamation matter, it surely means that the court, in dealing with the case, has a much clearer idea of what is at stake, and why it is relevant to the proceedings that information be obtained about the identity of somebody who made an allegedly defamatory statement online. Surely the court sees matters more clearly than a different court being asked to adjudicate on that matter alone.”
“Presumably, if a person is fortunate enough to be elected, that means you must have some number of supporters who can maybe keep an eye on these things for you, winnow them out, draw your attention to the things you absolutely have to know about and, hopefully, fight a bit of a battle of your behalf as regards those things you do not need to know about. Like Senator McDowell, while I applaud what the Government is doing, I am concerned that it is making it too hard for people to get the redress it proposes to make available or to access the levers it proposes to make available in order to obtain important information that could be relevant to defamation proceedings. Senator McDowell very helpfully went through the rationale for each of his amendments. I will comment briefly on what I thought of them.”
“You may try to convince yourself that such people are so unreasonable that no notice should be taken of them, much less no recourse sought to the courts to seek to vindicate your reputation. However, it is very rare that people are not in some way affected in their happiness and well-being by being exposed to such ugliness and nastiness. My advice to people has always been to treat social media sparingly and to use it to communicate their messages outwards. If you are in public life, it really does not make much sense to be reading about what people are saying about you at all.”
“I remember thinking some years ago that everybody in public life and anybody concerned with their own mental health needs to think very carefully about how they engage with social media and, if they communicate ideas into social media, how much attention they pay to what is said. A lot of politicians seem to be on social media very often and are arguing back and forth with people. It seems to me that, in many cases, they are giving very unreasonable and ugly people a big stick to beat them with. If you read someone saying nasty things about your appearance or making false or defamatory claims about you, you may try to convince yourself that it reflects on those people and not yourself.”
“Serious harm is being done, not just to people's reputations, which we are concerned with here in the context of defamation legislation, but to people's welfare, full stop, in all sorts of different ways. Everyone here has been subjected to abuse of one kind of another online. Sometimes, we have been subjected to fair criticism, but sometimes it goes far beyond that. I have often thought that one of the problems with the online space is that it gives people, who in the past only had toilet walls in public places to write on, an opportunity to seriously attack people and to bring their ugly invective and accusations to the attention of a wide audience.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I welcome the initiative the Minister has taken in bringing forward this proposed section. You would have to be some strange kind of free speech absolutist to say that what has been going on in these days, times and years on social and online media is acceptable for the sake of maintaining an absolute free flow of ideas. Senator McDowell, others in this House and I have acted strongly and purposefully to defend the free exchange of ideas, particularly the free exchange of political ideas. Going back to the legislation on hate speech and so forth last year, it has always been the view of reasonable people that stuff is said online that should never be said.”
“On that basis, since we are trying to discuss a very important matter, people have put time into the preparation of amendments and the Minister is waiting outside, I think it is fair to say that our colleagues have made their point very strongly, but that it is in everybody's interests, since nothing that is out of order has taken in place, that we now proceed with the business and that we take the Leas-Chathaoirleach up on her point that this matter can be addressed properly for the future. If there is a lack of consistency or some discrepancy which arose today, which has not rendered the proceedings out of order, then steps can be taken at the CPPO to make sure that things happen in a better way in future. I think we should move on at this point.”
“I have some sympathy with the complaint being made by fellow Members to the extent that there appears to be an inconsistency in terms of what normally happens, but I think from what the Leas-Chathaoirleach has said and quoted from Standing Orders, while there might be a certain inconsistency, which Senators have very validly brought to our attention today, what has happened is not out of order.”
“It is increasingly linked to addiction, mental health problems and violence against women. Can we have a debate about this new regulation and the further efforts needed to combat any kind of exploitation or sexual abuse of children, particularly online? We should also look at what we need to do as a country, what is being done and what more needs to be done by Coimisiún na Meán and others to ensure that children do not have access to any kind of pornographic material, because it is damaging them. I believe that stricter rules on age verification are vital. We are not there yet. There is more that needs to be said and more that needs to be done, although all of the things I have mentioned are, of course, very welcome.”
“Last week, I attended a plenary meeting of the Lanzarote committee, which is responsible for the implementation of the Lanzarote convention, which obliges signatory states to criminalise all forms of child sexual abuse. All of the developments taking place there are welcome but there were two things from last week's meeting that particularly struck me. One is the threat posed by AI, particularly the generation of child sexual abuse materials and imagery using artificial intelligence. I have made a point, which many agree with, which is that the very exposure of children, whether willing or otherwise, to any kind of pornography is, in itself, a form of child sexual abuse. We have to realise that child sexual abuse online is tied to the problem of adult pornography in general. Pornography is a public health issue.”
“I welcome yesterday's announcement from the European Council that agreement has been reached on a Council position on a regulation to prevent and combat child sexual abuse. The European Parliament established its position in late 2023. There will be obligations on digital companies to prevent the dissemination of child sexual abuse material and the solicitation of children. National authorities will have the power to oblige companies to remove and block access to content or, in the case of search engines, to delist search results around child sexual abuse material. There is also a new EU agency coming, the EU centre on child sexual abuse, which will support member states and online providers in implementing the law.”
“It is clear the Minister of State is very sympathetic and that the Government is paying attention to this. Perhaps, on occasions like this, the Nigerian ambassador could be called in, specifically because Ireland must claim ownership of this issue, given the strong connections we have.”
“Cardinal Onaiyekan asks whether there is a question of internal sabotage and whether within Nigerian Government ranks are members of Boko Haram, perhaps, or people who support terrorism. The concerted effort that needs to happen is the demand that this security and criminality problem - not a Christian-Muslim conflict - be addressed. The Nigerian Government must protect its own citizens. The least our Government can do, given our country's connection with this place and the wonderful work done by Irish missionaries to this day in Africa, is stand in solidarity with these people and put pressure on the Nigerian Government, hopefully in partnership with other governments. Action must be taken to protect the children and adults in this situation and in the other situations that have arisen far too often in Nigeria.”
“Why do children board in such a school? Because it is too far for them to travel to school. This is an activity of the Catholic Church that has been going on for many years. The school is run by the Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of the Apostles, an order founded by the Irish SMA Fathers to minister to women in western Africa. They are celebrating 150 years of their wonderful work this year. Many women in that order went out facing disease and danger and many had short lives in the mission territory but the work continues to this day. Sr. Mary T. Barron, who is the international leader of the congregation based in Rome, was in Ghana when all this happened. She is making exactly the right point and showing the same concern for the parents of the children and the families of the adults abducted.”
“I thank my colleague Senator McCarthy and welcome the Minister of State. What is going on here is the Nigerian Government is failing to protect its own citizens. It is vital that pressure be put on President Tinubu. I recommend listening to what people like Cardinal John Onaiyekan have said in recent days about what is going on. He points out this is not a Christian-Muslim conflict, though there are questions about the persecution of Christians in different parts of the world and questions of religious freedom. It is perhaps time for this Government to think about Ireland having an envoy for religious freedom. This particular instance is the abduction of over 300 children and about a dozen staff members from a school with a strong connection to Ireland. It was founded partly by an SMA father, Donall O'Cathain. It has about 600 children.”
“Without the freedom to believe, all other freedoms are under threat. I wish to mention my sorrow at the news of the death of Alice Cairns, the mother of Philip Cairns, a name known to everybody in this country. I had the honour of knowing Alice Cairns. She was a champion of the cause of protecting human life from its very beginning to its natural end. She was a woman who was suffering but she was strong through it all. On hearing the news of her passing today, I thought of the words of T.S. Eliot: We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Through the unknown, unremembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning; She was a great woman, admired by many, who endured a lot but was courageous throughout.”
“Of these, approximately 220 million live in countries where they are directly exposed to persecution. That is 10% or one in ten of all Christians. I seek an urgent debate on this matter. At a time when there is heightened awareness of human rights abuses globally, it seems there is a blind spot when it comes to violence against Christians and the wider threat to religious freedom for people of all faiths and none. According to Aid to the Church in Need, the right to believe or to live according to one's convictions is in decline in 62 countries, affecting billions of people. Religious persecution destroys communities, fuels conflict and forces millions to flee. Now, more than ever, religious freedom must be defended and protected worldwide. Religious freedom is a litmus test for all other freedoms.”
“I raise a global human rights crisis that is ignored far too often. Next week, the charity Aid to the Church in Need will mark its annual week of witness which highlights the ongoing persecution of Christians around the world. It is a sobering thought when we realise that since the first century AD of the Roman Empire, which we most associate with the beginning of Christian persecution, more Christians have been killed for their faith in the past 100 years than in the previous 1,900 going back to the first Christians. The latest religious freedom in the world report of 2025 published by Aid to the Church in Need shows that a staggering 413 million Christians live in countries where religious freedom is severely violated. That is 18% or about one in five Christians.”
“I have one last observation. Increasingly, we see on our programmes that, no matter what topic is being dealt with, up comes an announcement at the end of the current affairs programme, “If you have been affected by any of the issues in this programme, you can dial the following number or go to the following helpline.” Is this what we are facing into? Should we be expecting broadcasters to say, “If you have been defamed by anything that has just been said on this programme, for which the media does not have any financial responsibility, here is a helpline for you to ring”?”
“That has a very limited reach. What we are talking about here is a new and very challenging reality. Mass communication is relatively recent, historically. In light of all the developments in the digital sphere and the social media sphere, we are struggling to vindicate people's rights in this situation. It is precisely because broadcast media has such reach that there need to be consequences. I do not accept at all the comparison with a public meeting.”
“I do accept the Minister’s good faith attempt here to create a space for the media to do its important work. When he says it is not for us to decide whether the media operate using live broadcasts and so on, that may be so, but we all have to live with the consequences of our own liberties. It is not a question of telling the media what they can do. It is a question of saying that in the world in which we live, what you do may have serious consequences for innocent people. You have to be responsible, particularly if you are a great and powerful organisation with resources at your disposal, in circumstances where you may platform somebody who does not have resources and is not going to be a mark in the first instance. I do not think it is a valid comparison that the Minister makes with a public meeting organised by a Minister.”
“Does that mean we cannot expect there should be any obligation to take steps to verify it when the court is considering whether the broadcaster of a live programme had taken "reasonable and prudent precautions"? Is that a fair question for me to ask the Minister?”
“So-and-so or Minister So-and-so he has made certain claims, and if that matter that is already before the courts, I assume that there would be some kind of sub judice obligations there and that the failure of the broadcaster with regard to the party making an allegation relating to a matter before the courts would certainly fail the test of taking "reasonable and prudent precautions". However, let us suppose it is not before the courts; let us suppose it is a dispute, an allegation or claim. Let us suppose that A is out there making the most serious of allegations against B and it has not been tested in the courts. We know that it is okay to give "an accurate and impartial account" of that allegation and that you do not have to "take steps to verify" it.”
“We know that in that situation, there is no obligation on the defendant to have taken "steps to verify the truth". Will that colour the way the courts will interpret the obligations around taking "reasonable and prudent precautions"? Can we infer, from the absence of an obligation to take "steps to verify the truth of the imputation" in one situation, that the courts will not worry about whether steps were taken to verify the truth of an accusation? Let us say it is in the context of a court dispute. If someone says in the context of a live audience debate that in his action for abuse against Mr. So-and-so, Sr. So-and-so, Dr.”
“We know that the new section 26 proposes: Where the statement in respect of which the defamation action was brought was an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the plaintiff in the defamation action was a party, the court shall, in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest, disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it. This proposed section relates to circumstances in which there is a dispute between parties in which one levels an accusation against the other and "an accurate and impartial account" is given of what one side claims against the other. An "accurate and impartial account" merely reports what A alleges against B.”
“In looking at the question of whether a broadcaster of a live programme took reasonable and prudent precautions, how does this proposed section 27A link in, interact with, affect or be affected by the proposed new section 26, on "Publication on a matter of public interest"? How will the courts interpret the obligations about taking "reasonable and prudent precautions" in the new section 27A in light of what the new section 26 says? I am thinking about where you have a defamatory statement made in the context of a dispute. Let us take the example of somebody who makes an allegation of abuse against somebody.”
“With regard to the ungrateful media, I often think of the story about Kelvin MacKenzie of The Sun after some journalists were wined and dined by some corporate interest seeing to curry favour. On the way back to Fleet Street and the office, MacKenzie said "Now, let us go stun them with our ingratitude". An ungrateful media is a cornerstone of our democracy but an accountable media is also essential in our democracy. There is a particular thing I rose to ask the Minister about that worries me. Perhaps I am wrong and perhaps my worries are misplaced but it might be something he will consider.”
“I do not mind an adjustment of this issue for the sake of the free flow of debate in our society, but I am worried the Minister is going to an extreme here by removing all burdens, especially the possibility of financial burdens, from the shoulders of broadcast media in the context that something very wrong and damaging to a person's reputation could be done. I call on the Minister to look at adjusting the issues to be considered here to include the possibility of some kind of cost burden, where, for example, a correction order would be made, to include consideration of whether a person was present to defend themselves. That kind of issue needs to be looked at.”
“Even on that point, is it not relevant to consider here, among the issues that the amendment proposes to be considered, whether in the context of a defamatory statement the person against whom it was made was present in the studio and in a position to defend themselves? That would not be the only issue. Just because you are in the studio does not mean there should not be any consequences if something defamatory is said about you, but it makes a difference. I would argue that this is the type of issue that should be in here among the issues for the court to consider. Was the person against whom the defamatory statement was made present to defend themselves to any degree? That, to me, is a very relevant factor in determining whether the broadcaster was taking "reasonable and prudent precautions".”
“Where is the obligation in the Bill for the broadcaster, presenter or debate moderator to roll up their sleeves, to get in and nip it in the bud, to stop it, to push back against it, to tell the audience member that they cannot say that because, first, the person is not here to defend themselves, second, the statement may or may not be true, and third, the statement is potentially defamatory, and to call on listeners or viewers to disregard that statement in the same way a judge in a courtroom would direct information away from a jury's attention? That is the kind of heavy standard that I would expect to be laid on a broadcaster, regardless of whatever defence you create here.”
“The responsibility I would expect from a broadcaster is this: if you are presenting a programme and if somebody on that programme, say in a live audience, says something defamatory about me, I would expect you to fight for my reputation as much as you would for your own reputation if they had made the defamatory statement directly to your face in the context of a live broadcast. That is what people are entitled to expect, and I think that is what Senator McDowell is talking about. I do not want to put words into his mouth.”
“Even when something very injurious to a person's reputation could get uttered there - something very unfair and very defamatory - the fact would be that the person who made the statement in the context of a live audience would already be somebody who would be very much to be sympathised with. We would all have a degree of understanding that the language they might use might not be the language of a lawyer in a courtroom. I would argue that this is exactly the type of circumstance where something could be said that is extremely defamatory, but you would not necessarily want to think of the person who made the utterance as the person you would charge legally. I suggest that the broadcaster would have an enormous responsibility in that situation. What is that responsibility?”
“I will give the example of victims of abuse, for whom everybody feels enormous sympathy and who deserve a great degree of respect and leeway in what they say. When there is a live public debate about a very contentious issue - let us take the terrible issue of abuse as an example - it is very easy for people who have already suffered enough themselves to go from making general comments about an institution that, in their recollection, mistreated them to actually naming particular individuals. This has happened. On occasion, it is later found out that the particular individual was not working in the institution in question at the time and so on and so forth.”
“I was close to that story because it was my own parish priest who was involved. He was a lucky man because he had the means of disproving the false allegation and he survived in his ministry as a result. The point was raised at the time by myself and others that it seemed likely that part of the reason RTÉ dropped its standards in that particular case was that it was dealing with the church and the church was in a bad state in terms of public opinion around abuse issues for reasons we all understand and know about. I say all of this because, if you think about it, there are circumstances of high controversy in Irish life that come to be discussed in public debates sometimes, and on live audiences.”