Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill 2026: Second Stage
Dail Éireann — 2026-09-29
============================================================

Gary Gannon (SD), Dublin Central

The Social Democrats will be supporting the Bill. Before we get into the detail of it, it is worth reminding ourselves of what we are actually trying to protect here. Strategic lawsuits against public participation make the consequences of speaking out so expensive, stressful and prolonged that eventually people decide that it is simply safer not to speak at all. The people most exposed are often precisely the people who are integral to a functioning democracy, namely, journalists, whistleblowers, activists, NGOs and people attempting to expose wrongdoing.
That is why this legislation matters. We are fortunate in this country to have a robust and independent press. Those of us in politics may not always feel particularly fortunate when we open the newspaper in the morning. We might not like what has been written about us. We might think something is unfair. We might think a journalist has completely misunderstood something we have done. However, that is democracy. The test of whether we believe in a free press is not whether we support journalism that is favourable to us. It is whether we defend the right of journalists to scrutinise us, challenge us, irritate us and occasionally make our lives uncomfortable. Events elsewhere over the last number of weeks should remind us of how precious that is.
Earlier this month, Donald Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were to be banned from the White House because of reporting he did not like. That was not just rhetoric. Journalists from those organisations subsequently arrived at the White House and were denied entry. Their press credentials were confiscated. A federal judge has since intervened and temporarily restored their access on finding that the ban was likely to be unconstitutional. Today, those news organisations still have to go before the courts to protect their access while that case continues. It is genuinely extraordinary that we have arrived at a point in 2026 when the President of the US has decided that because he does not approve of the journalism of a particular news organisation, those journalists should no longer have access to the seat of government. It is dystopian. It should concern democrats of every political persuasion because governments do not get to decide who is a legitimate journalist based on whether they like what that journalist writes about them. Governments do not get to determine what constitutes acceptable scrutiny of government. The moment journalists begin wondering whether asking a difficult question will cost them access, whether publishing an investigation will result in retaliation or whether reporting something uncomfortable will result in financial or legal consequences, democracy has already started to lose.
I criticise the Government regularly. I am going to continue to do so because that is my job. It is also worth acknowledging that, thankfully, there should be nearly cross-party agreement in the House for a law such as this. We have a functioning democracy. Journalists can stand outside this building and criticise the Taoiseach, the Minister, the Opposition or anybody in this House. They can investigate the Government, expose failures of the State and report information those in power would much rather never saw the light of day, and thank God for that. We should treasure that freedom rather than simply assume it is permanent, because those freedoms can be eroded. Intimidation can become normalised, scrutiny can become something to be punished and those who have considerably more power and considerably deeper pockets can make the cost of speaking simply too great.
Coming back to the Bill, I welcome the fact the Government is completing the transposition of the European anti-SLAPP directive and even extending these protections beyond defamation to other civil and commercial proceedings. I particularly welcome the decision to extend the protections to domestic cases rather than restricting them to cases with a cross-border dimension because it would make very little sense to recognise the chilling effect of this type of litigation where there is a cross-border element but not where exactly the same things happen entirely in this State.
There are good protections in here. There is a provision for security for costs and damages. There are provisions for organisations with a legitimate interest in protecting public participation to assist defendants, and there is provision for damages where proceedings are ultimately found to have been abusive. Section 8 also allows somebody to seek the early dismissal of a claim as manifestly unfounded and requires the person bringing the case to substantiate the claim.
These are meaningful protections, but there are areas where we can make this legislation stronger as it progresses. There needs to be a clearly identified focal point for people dealing with SLAPPs and it is my understanding that IHREC is willing to perform that role, but I do not believe it is named in the legislation as the focal point. That matters because if we expect an organisation to take on an additional function, we have to formally recognise that function and resource it accordingly. I ask the Minister of State to look at that as the Bill progresses.
An issue arose when we considered the anti-SLAPP provisions in the defamation legislation last year. The threshold for early dismissal remains that a claim is manifestly unfounded. I am not convinced that fully captures what makes SLAPPs so insidious. The point is not necessarily that every SLAPP is completely without a legal argument. It is that the legal process itself can become the punishment. If somebody has vastly greater resources than the journalist, campaigner or whistleblower they are pursuing, they do not necessarily need to win. They can drag proceedings out, increase the costs, consume everybody's time and resources and make that person's life miserable. Most importantly, they can make that next person think twice before speaking.
The Minister of State could look again at whether the underlying proceedings should be paused while an application for early dismissal is being determined. We raised this issue during the defamation legislation on this floor as well. The logic of it is fairly straightforward. If somebody comes before a court and says, "This case is being used to exhaust me financially and silence me", it somewhat defeats the purpose if the cost of that case continues to mount while we decide whether they are right. The amendments we previously considered sought precisely that kind of stay in order to prevent legal fees continuing to accrue while a strike-out application was being determined. The protection has to work in reality, not merely on paper.
None of these issues take away from the fact that this is good and necessary legislation, but we should never become complacent about having a free press. Whatever disagreements we have in the House, and they are plenty, I hope that is something we can find unanimity on.
Before I conclude, these will be the last weeks before the courts open fully. Next week, chaos will reign around the courts. Our press, even today, is filled with reports of court cases that have proceeded without legal representation. It is incumbent on the Minister of State's Department and the senior Minister to intervene, negotiate and come to an agreement to avoid the precipice of what is going to be a disaster next week.
When we talk about SLAPP legislation, we should also stop and remember other whistleblowers, such as the ones who have come forward and raised issues in relation to the protected disclosure departments. This legislation in regard to SLAPP is happening at the same time that continued penalisation is happening against Dr. Donal Corcoran and Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly. I ask the Minister of State to intervene and cease that because if we believe in protecting whistleblowers, and we talk about it often, that must exist across all the architecture of the State. The architecture for protected disclosures is failing and the continued penalisation of those Garda members, through simply making their pay packet, is not fair or acceptable. The Minister of State has a responsibility to intervene.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2026-09-29/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-10-05T01:00:59+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-09-29