I have a piece (sub req’d) in today’s Business Post:
Gerry Adams’ High Court win shows need for urgent defamation reform
One of the factors that makes Irish law so appealing to foreign plaintiffs is the weakness of the public interest defence
… the Adams case demonstrates that the Government must re-think its defamation reform proposals in at least three key respects. The first relates to the fact that Adams took the case in Dublin, rather than in Belfast, where the programme was primarily broadcast. The second relates to the failure of the BBC’s public interest defence. The third relates to the role of the jury.
Read more here (sub req’d).
Update: I am grateful to the Business Post for allowing me to post my op-ed for download here (.doc) so soon after publication.
On the same page, Daniel McConnell has a related piece (sub req’d):
Vaunted defamation bill of little use if universal serious harm test not included
For truth to flourish in a democracy, it must be defendable
… the incoming Defamation (Amendment) Bill … stops short of the critical reform required: the introduction of a universal serious harm test … Without it, wealthy plaintiffs can – and do – use the threat of litigation to suppress inquiry, delay stories, and bleed newsrooms dry. …
Read more here (sub req’d).