We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

File photo - Frank O'Rourke Leah Farrell via
frank o'rourke

Facebook would have difficulty complying with order sought by ex-FF TD, High Court hears

Frank O’Rourke claims he was defamed in posts on social media.

FACEBOOK HAS TOLD the High Court it would have difficulties complying with an order sought by former Fianna Fáil TD Frank O’Rourke requiring it to provide details of an account which he claims was responsible for social media posts which defamed him.

Last month O’Rourke sought orders, known as a ‘Norwich Pharmacal’ orders, in separate actions against Twitter International Company and Facebook Ireland Ltd requiring so he can identify the posters so he can sue them for defamation.

He seeks details including the account holders’ names and email and IP addresses. O’Rourke previously secured orders against Twitter.

However, Facebook claims it would not be able to comply if a similar order is made against it.

Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds heard today from Rossa Fanning SC for Facebook who said his client needed certain technical information before it could comply with any orders to provide information on an account holder who has allegedly defamed the former TD.

Counsel said Facebook has not been provided with a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or web address regarding an allegedly defamatory post made about the former TD on Facebook.

Counsel said Facebook requires the URL so it identify the alleged poster of defamatory remarks about O’Rourke, and comply with any orders concerning the account.

Another difficulty was that the account holder who allegedly defamed O’Rourke has a very common name, and it was concerned about the legal repercussions of handing over information to the ex-TD’s lawyers on what turned out to be the wrong account.

Fanning said Facebook usually takes a neutral view to such applications, and complies with the orders of the court, and could comply wither certain relief sought by O’Rourke.

Counsel said that it was most likely the comments had been deleted and that O’Rourke had waited till last month to seek orders against Facebook over comments that were posted in February.

Counsel added that Facebook was different from Twitter in that each Twitter account has a unique ‘handle’, and that it is much easier to identify individual account holders the subject of Norwich Pharmacal orders.

In reply Declan Doyle SC for O’Rourke said his client was not happy with Facebook’s response to the order sought adding that the sides had unlike in the proceedings involving Twitter had not been able to reach an agreement.

Counsel said very little details regarding what steps Facebook has taken regarding the account Rourke seeks details about were included in a sworn statement by Facebook’s lawyers to the court.

Counsel said it appeared that Facebook was “shrugging its shoulders” regarding his client’s application because it does not have details including a URL of the comments his client claims are defamatory.

Ms Justice Reynolds said Facebook should provide the court with a sworn statement setting out in detail the steps and efforts it is making in regards to the information about the account holder that O’Rourke claims defamed him.

The judge adjourned O’Rourke’s case against Facebook to a date in January.


O’Rourke claims that wholly untrue statements posted about him on social media last February were designed “to cause maximum professional damage to me” in the 2020 General Election, at a time when he was going through “a difficult marriage breakdown”.

He claims that members of the public told him that they had seen “horrible stuff” about him on social media and that his political supporters received “negative feedback on the doorsteps of North Kildare” following the publication of the comments.

He also alleges that untrue posts were made on Facebook pages on pages associated with the Celbridge area about his family life and his personal financial matters were designed to show that he was unfit to serve in Dáil Éireann.

He further claims that a tweet was put out shortly before the election which called on people not to vote for him, also contained untrue and defamatory statements about his personal life.

Representing Fianna Fáil, O’Rourke of Dublin Road, Celbridge, was elected as TD for North Kildare in 2016. In February’s election he lost his seat after finishing fifth in the four-seater constituency.

Comments are closed as legal proceedings are ongoing.

Aodhan O Faolain