Under the Constitution we all have the right "to express freely" our convictions and opinions - with a big fat but. But, the education of public opinion is such a grave matter, organs of public opinion, (i.e., the media) "shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the state". References which are considered blasphemous, seditious or indecent are punishable in accordance with the law.
So while our constitution accords us freedom of speech, it is a restricted freedom (if that's not a contradictory idea). There are a number of laws which control that freedom of expression: The Censorship of Publications Act, the Censorship of Films Act, the Video Recording Act, the Broadcasting Act, particularly section 31, the Official Secrets Act and the Defamation Act. Most of the legislation is concerned with protecting public morality. The definition of morality was originally based on particularly Catholic values. While most people in the State are Catholic, access to other value systems around the world through foreign television stations, travel and the Internet has broadened public opinion on what is considered moral and immoral, and, in general, legislation is interpreted accordingly.
Censorship does occur for other reasons. Under the Official Secrets Act, for example, just about everything is secret. "Official information" is defined as "any information which is secret . . . which is or has been in . . . control of a holder of public office, or to which he has access". So, infamously, even the menus in the restaurant of Dail Eireann can be classified an official secret.
Unless a Minister or State authority says otherwise, it is illegal to communicate official information. In other words, if you were to get a look at today's Leinster House menu and tell anyone what you had seen, unless you had permission, you'd theoretically be in big trouble. This could obviously places pretty serious restrictions on journalists.
And that's not just in theory: the British version of the Official Secrets Act has been in action only this week. A journalist, Tony Geraghty, is facing prosecution under the Act because his recent book, The Irish War, gives details of how military intelligence has operated in Northern Ireland.
The Freedom of Information Act, passed in 1997, balances out the Official Secrets Act somewhat. You now have access to "official information" about yourself (which was actually not possible just two years ago); journalists and others can request information on how decisions were reached and so on.
The Broadcasting Act has a section which in the past has given rise to a considerable amount of censorship. Under this section the relevant Minister can decide that "any matter" cannot be broadcast. For more than 20 years, a Ministerial order under this section 31 decreed that interviews with the IRA and Sinn Fein could not be broadcast. Journalists, concerned that they might break the law, interpreted this order quite broadly - and until the order was dropped several years ago in the course of the "peace process", few people in the State even knew what Gerry Adams sounded like.
Self-censorship also comes about because of fears of libel. Under the Defamation Act 1961, publishing or broadcasting information about a person which might harm their reputation can lead to costly court settlements. The libel laws here are particularly tough, and people frequently sue the media. Whether or not the journalist is right, court cases are very expensive and, unless it is essential, editors prefer not to publish information which might see them in court.
Legislation in Ireland which lends itself to censorship is generally considered something relevant to another era. A consultation document on changing the censorship laws is due out before the end of the year. Meanwhile how the law is interpreted remains subject to values which are constantly in flux. And that, it just so happens, is the topic of next week's Media Scope.
