TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 7 °C Thursday 23 May, 2013

Oireachtas committee wants to hear your issues with social media

Transport and Communications joint committee has launched a public consultation process to explore the use – and abuse – of social media. (And you can participate through social media).

MEMBERS OF THE public and groups with an interest in the effects of the rise of social media use are being asked to air their views and concerns. And, appropriately, the submissions will be partly collected through Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

A joint Oireachtas committee has launched a public consultation for submissions on how the use – or abuse – of social media has affected you.

As well as collecting those submissions, the Transport and Communications committee will explore “how the irresponsible use of social media channels might be curbed” in a series of hearings. These will take place in Leinster House on 6, 7 and 13 March.

The hearings are to give a platform for a debate on the subject – including cyber-bullying and “online harrassment” – as well as to hear ministerial input on what legislation might be considered to tackle these issues. They will also hear the views of representatives from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, which the committee considers to be “primary social media networks”.

Tom Hayes, Fine Gael TD for Tipperary South, is chairing the committee. He said:

Social media outlets are changing the way many of our citizens interact with one another. Some disquiet has accompanied the rise of social media, particularly in relation to the nature of abusive and unfettered commentary.

The submissions from “any individuals and groups with an interest in this area” will form part of the end report from the committee, which will contain recommendations to the Government on how to meet the challenges being thrown up by the evolving and increasing participation of Irish citizens on social media platforms.

If you would like to be part of the conversation, you can…

  • Make a submission through the Oireachtas Facebook page
  • Tweet suggestions to @OireachtasNews with the hashtag #jctcsubmission
  • Creating a YouTube video and send it to jctc@oireachtas.ie or tweet or post it on Facebook at the accounts mentioned above
  • Email your thoughts to jctc@oireachtas.ie
  • Post to Clerk, Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, Kildare House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

Submissions have to be received by 15 March 2013.

Read next:

Comments (41 Comments)

  • They shouldn’t regulate what they don’t understand. Defamation laws, hate crime legislation , harassment laws apply to electronic media already.

    Reply
  • The official media is in major decline and without it, the political and financial hierarchy is in deep trouble.
    It is vital for them that social media are restrained and that’s all that this is about.

    Reply
  • Arbitrasure

    Banning the use of pseudonyms that is the first step in banning freedom of speech.

    However will not stop your beloved FG politicians telling the public lies, or is freedom of speech only for elected people?

    Reply
    • Prolific use of pseudonyms dumbs down the level of debate.
      If the only way to post opinion online was as your genuine identity I think, over time, it would be better for democracy as more and more people decide to make themselves heard as their real self. People would be much closer to standing up in their community and making themselves heard if they are posting as their true selves rather than behind a fake ID.

      Forums filled with pseudonyms ranting about things drowns out genuine debate. It can be funny and sometimes can be worthwhile when a decent discussion develops. But if someone is trying to censor free speech or inhibit the development of any coherency, the best way is to allow the room be filled with the noise of chattering avatars, hurling abuse at each other and cherry-picking the ‘facts’ as they see them.

      Reply
    • Arbitrasure

      Exactly why the politicians should not be looking to ban pseudonyms then?

      Reply
    • If I understand your question – yes, I think politicians who want to be able to disregard online forum posters views as anonymous rants from people hiding behind false identities, they should leave things as they are. It is very easy to say those views are irrelevant because the person is not prepared to put their neck on the line (online) and are really just venting personal views in a public forum, from behind a curtain.

      If more people properly identified themselves posting their views, it would show they are prepared to stand behind what they say, regardless of the medium. That would be better from a democratic perspective. More of the population would have a voice.

      Good democracy keeps elected politicians on their toes. Anonymous online posting is neither good nor bad for democracy; but it is little more than idle banter.

      Reply
    • Arbitrasure

      What about employees of the State who fear making public what they know? How do we protect them if we ban pseudonyms?

      Reply
  • I just reread the piece and it quotes Tom Hayes, Fine Gael TD for Tipperary South, as stating “Some disquiet … in relation to the nature of abusive and unfettered commentary.”

    I think we can all agree that abusive comments are an important issue. However how do you determine or even more importantly who determines what are and what are not abusive comments? In particular how do you align this with every individual having the right, under law, to express their honest opinion? After all honest opinion allows that everybody may maintain and express their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming proof to the opposite, even taking account of last weeks high court case. In fact some would say curtailing honest opinion may even stop an individual’s right to practice their religious beliefs!

    What is of more concern to me is that Tom Hayes has included the term “unfettered commentary”. Unfettered is described as “1. to release from fetters, bonds, etc or 2. to release from restraint or inhibition”.

    For is not placing fetters or bonds, on what and how people express their constitutional right to honest opinion, a long way of saying censorship?

    Reply
  • Think they have bigger things to be worrying about than social media

    Reply
  • What is the bet our “great and good” (ha) leaders ignore what we say and push ahead with what they want?

    Reply
  • Regarding social media, I think there are certain principles that any laws should be based upon.

    1. All people are people, treat them as people. Even the people despised by some, must be treated as people by the “some”.

    2. People have a right to a personal life, and to live that life undisturbed if they so wish, even if another’s professional life is publicising some people’s personal lives.

    3. People have a right to a professional life, and to live that life without having to answer for things done on personal time(outside of criminal acts, of course).

    4. People have a right to live the two lives separately or together as they wish, and change that relationship as they wish.

    5. People must stand behind what they say. If they fear persecution, they must speak through a trusted third party.

    6. All communications are in earnest unless indicated otherwise.

    Reply
    • Forgot to add to 6. “(even something as simple as an emoticon)”

      Reply
    • Colm

      The right to the practice of a private personal life is actually guaranteed for under European law.

      I know of people in the employee of the State who believe this Government are engaged in the social destruction of the Irish way of life. However they fear making public these concerns owing to the legal ramifications that will be brought to bear on them. The same legal ramifications cannot be brought to bear against most Irish Citizens including the politicians.

      Reply
  • any action on cyber bullying is to be welcomed, however i think do think that some opportunistic politicians mights use this as an attempt to curb freedom of speech. They have done a nice job with RTE in recent times. is it now possible they want to shut up the naysayers in cyberspace

    Reply
  • it looks like this could lead to banning use of pseudonyms.
    people may be held accountable for libel, false accusations.
    people may be taken to court if they repeatedly demonstrate gross stupidity and ignorance of facts in their arguments.

    Reply
  • Any initiative that can reduce the level of dissent with my forum comments and contributions is to be welcomed.

    Reply
  • ??? manners costs nothing… insults, name calling and character assination is wrong

    Reply
  • Cpm 22/02/13 #

    My issues with social media are:

    1/ In any comments section on a Facebook news article, some idiot will always comment ‘Like’ and think he’s hilarious
    2/ Quoting some unknown clown’s tweet relating to an news story, in an article about that story, incorrectly makes said clown think his opinion is relevant, or of importance. It’s not.
    3/ Adding hashtags outside Twitter doesn’t make you look edgy, it makes you look stupid.
    4/ Your future employer will probably look at your social media account, bear that in mind when you’re posting those hi-larious photographs, from the previous night’s pissup, of you trying to stick a traffic cone up your ar5e

    I’m sure there are more.

    Reply
  • Colm

    As my Honours Degree was not in English, I must have a damaged pre frontal cortex otherwise I should have know this according to Damocles.

    We all can’t be perfect can we Damocles?

    Can somebody please let me know if that was sarcasm as I appear to have a damaged pre frontal cortex, or so I am lead to believe, even without a medical examination?

    Reply

Add New Comment