Fergus Cassidy

Futuristic surveillance painting by artist Banksy.

Irony of ironies. The one piece of technology I was most reluctant to embrace over the years was a mobile phone. And now, after a long gap, my connectivity (and sanity) is restored courtesy of a 3G phone modem.

Going freelance and moving house added to the enforced hiatus, but at last all my bits are coming together.

Timely too, as the current passage of a confusing (to me) piece of legislation through the Seanad (next stop the Dail) needs some attention from those of us who feel that the internet is too important to be conveniently side-stepped when making law.

One of the key aspects of the Defamation Bill 2006 is the setting up of a Press Council. This body “shall adopt a code of standards which shall be adhered to, and the rules and practices to be complied with by the members of the Press Council”.

The Press Council “shall have authority to receive, hear and determine complaints concerning the conduct of its members.

“The Press Council shall appoint a person (in this Act referred to as the ‘Press Ombudsman’) to, hear and determine complaints made to the Press Council concerning the conduct of its members”. There will also be an appeals system.

I’m livid that this new facility for hearing complaints will only be applicable if the complaint concerns a member of the Press Council.

So who can join then to avail of this determination facility?

“The owner of any periodical in circulation in the State or part of the State shall be entitled to be a member of the Press Council”.

Periodical is then defined as “any newspaper, magazine, journal or other publication that is printed, published or issued, or that circulates, in the State at regular or substantially regular intervals and includes any version thereof [my emphasis] published on the internet or by other electronic means”.

On my reading, there’s a big question mark hanging over those who publish exclusively through the internet. What exactly is meant by ‘regular’ or ’substantially regular intervals’. And ‘any version thereof’ seems to imply an extension of an existing print or broadcast publication.

So if someone has a complaint against a publication or organisation which is a member of the Press Council, that’s where they go.

But what happens if the complaint is directed at a non-member of the Press Council? A blogger? If this Bill is anything to go by, that doesn’t seem to matter.

This situation is wrong, very wrong. And it, once again, reflects a ‘those kids and their pesky computers’ attitude towards the internet by the powers-that-be.

A rude awakening awaits.