Free press essential in democracy

Over the last fortnight, the Seanad has been debating the Defamation Bill and its long-awaited reform of Ireland's absurd libel laws.

During the debate, Senator David Norris gave a striking personal example of the way the current laws can work: "Over the airwaves I stated that the situation pertaining to the selling of alcohol in Dublin is outrageous . . . On RTÉ, I said I did not know who gave out the licences or where they lived. I said it was probably Killiney or Howth because they do not live around me and I asked what kind of lunatics they are.

RTÉ was sued because it turned out there was only [ one] person awarding the licences. The guff that came from the solicitors was to the effect that I had called their client - a most distinguished citizen - a lunatic and a madman . . . I used a commonly employed turn of speech but RTÉ was grilled and filleted . . ."

Two other Senators were able to point to their involvement with the law from the opposite point of view to Norris's: that of being libelled. Maurice Hayes illustrated the difficulty of simply getting an apology for a misleading accusation because, under the law as it stands, an apology is taken as an admission of liability, leaving the publisher or broadcaster open to a legal case it cannot defend.

"A couple of years ago," he said, "a morning newspaper . . . carried an article suggesting that, in pieces I had written about Northern Ireland, I was acting as a spokesman for the Irish Government, thereby destroying my independence. I knew and respected the young man who wrote the article and all I wanted was to get straight to the point and get him to state this was wrong and no more. Although we eventually reached this point, to do so we were almost obliged to ignore lawyers on both sides."

Martin Mansergh had a similar experience to relate: "A couple of years ago, I was seriously libelled in respect of actions that, in practice, I did not take as an adviser back in 1998. Although I was prepared to go to law, if necessary, after I had made my protest, the newspaper concerned published a letter of mine that stated the allegation made was untrue and the reasons it was untrue in order that people could judge for themselves adequately. Thereafter, I had no interest in pursuing the case any further and am glad to note the libel has not been repeated by any source."

These cases illustrate very well some of the reasons why reform of the libel laws is urgently necessary. To his credit, Michael McDowell has come up with a thoughtful and well-balanced Bill. Among other things, it would make it more difficult for someone to sue a radio station successfully because a guest on a programme had made a broad statement that no reasonable listener would have taken as a reference to a particular individual.

It would allow people like Maurice Hayes and Martin Mansergh, who simply want a misleading statement to be withdrawn or a right of reply, to get redress without going to court. It would allow for honest opinions to be expressed and for honest mistakes to be rectified without the involvement of our learned friends.

You might think, for example, that in Norris's unfortunate case, the sensible outcome would be for RTÉ to broadcast an apology on the next edition of the programme, saying that his comments were not intended to refer to any individual and accepting that the individual concerned is a sane and rational person.

Yet the strongest opposition to the provisions in the Bill that would allow this to happen came, oddly enough, from Norris himself. He not only argued against allowing media organisations to apologise without admitting liability, but he claimed to be reflecting in this the private views of many members of the Cabinet, who "have told me in the privacy of the Members' Bar that they feel the same way ".

Almost all of the amendments suggested in the Seanad are negative, restrictive ones. Labour's Joanna Tuffy proposed time limits on the issuing of apologies. Norris opposed the defence of "honest opinion" as a "libeller's charter". Jim Walsh of Fianna Fáil suggested that newspapers might be made liable even when reporting statements made in the Oireachtas or in tribunals of inquiry. Norris, again, even proposed that statements made by judges in court cases should no longer be privileged.

The general tenor of the debate was suspicious and grudging, with no real sense of press freedom as being an essential aspect of democracy, to be restricted reluctantly and only so far as is necessary.

The urge of politicians to control what is written and said remains strong, and it provides the background to a climate in which journalists are being arrested for writing stories, or pursued to reveal their sources, and in which hospital consultants are presented with contracts that forbid them to discuss hospital business in public.

Is there any chance of remembering that the only thing worse than an irresponsible press is an unfree one?