RTE Staff Information Bulletin: opposing 1992 High Court ruling liberalising RTE's Section 31 censorship regime (O'Toole case), plus letters, campaign leaflets

  Some  background  to  following  RTE  information  bulletin  and  to  a  replying  bulletin   from  the  Repeal  Section  31  Campaign.  They  were  distributed  to  RTÉ  staff  in  1992.   In  1992  RTÉ  lost  an  important  High  Court  case  in  which  it  was  determined  that  the   station  had  extended  censorship  provisions  under  Section  31  of  the  Broadcasting  Act.   A  Ministerial  Order  in  place  under  the  act,  as  amended  in  1976,  censored   spokespersons  for,  or  representatives  of,  Sinn  Féin  on  RTE  (plus  on  other  licensed   privately  owned  radio  stations  that  emerged  during  the  1990s).   In  ‘Laurence  [Larry]  O’Toole  versus  RTÉ’,  O’Toole  argued  successfully  that  RTÉ  was   wrong  to  censor  him  as  spokesperson  for  striking  bakery  workers  in  Finglas,  Dublin,   solely  because  he  was  a  member  of  Sinn  Féin.  RTÉ  had  in  effect  extended  the   censorship  provision  by  banning  all  Sinn  Féin  members,  whether  speaking  for  trade   unions,  as  in  O'Toole's  case,  other  organisations,  or  in  a  private  capacity.   O’Toole  established  his  argument  in  letters  back  and  forth  to  RTÉ  Head  of  News  Joe   Mulholland  in  1990  and  1991.  He  stated  that  as  a  worker  in  the  Gateaux  factory  in   Finglas  (where  the  strike  took  place)  and  as  an  executive  member  of  the  bakery   workers  trade  union,  he  was  not  representing  or  speaking  on  behalf  of  Sinn  Féin.  RTE   rejected  his  argument  and  stated  that  O’Toole  was  banned  because  he  was  an   ordinary  Sinn  Féin  member  (two  of  the  letters  are  attached).   When  the  High  Court  verdict  was  announced,  RTÉ  was  in  effect  ordered  to  liberalise   its  self-­‐censorship  regime.  Many  expected  that  the  station  would  be  relieved  that   more  freedom  of  speech  was  permitted  than  it  had  thought  possible.  The  NUJ   Broadcasting  Branch  in  RTÉ  welcomed  the  ruling  and  many  believed  management   would  follow  suit.     Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ Surprisingly,  that  turned  out  not  to  be  the  case.  RTÉ  appealed  the  ruling.  In  effect  RTÉ   appealed  to  be  censored,  despite  its  official  policy  of  opposing  Section  31.  RTÉ  also,   more  surprisingly,  refused  to  obey  the  High  Court  ruling.  O’Toole  therefore  brought   RTÉ  back  to  the  High  Court.  He  presented  the  RTÉ  staff  bulletin  as  evidence  of  RTÉ’s   refusal  to  comply  with  the  Court.  RTÉ  was  then  ordered  to  obey  the  ruling.  RTÉ   afterwards  applied  for  and  received  a  stay  on  the  ruling  pending  the  Supreme  Court   appeal.  RTÉ  appeared  determined  in  all  circumstances  to  maintain  as  harsh  a   censorship  regime  as  it  could  contrive  in  the  circumstances.   RTE  management  thought  it  wise  to  explain  its  stance  internally,  as  staff  expressed   discomfort  with  RTÉ’s  response  to  the  High  Court  ruling.  In  its  Staff  Information   Bulletin  (7  August  1992,  No.  632)  RTÉ  sought  to  justify  itself.  The  document  stated   that  RTÉ  was  seeking  ‘clarification’  from  the  Supreme  Court,  which  implied  a  neutral   or  even  a  benign  approach.     In  fact  RTÉ  had  no  intention  of  behaving  in  this  manner,  as  indicated  by  further   commentary.  RTÉ  implied  that  it  had  a  sort  of  police-­‐state  duty  to  exclude  Sinn  Fein   members  from  RTÉ,  who  allegedly  infiltrated  civil  society  organisations  on  behalf  of   the  illegal  Irish  Republican  Army.  RTE  amplified  this  approach  in  its  appeal  claim.   RTÉ’s  barrister  confirmed  it  in  the  Supreme  Court.  He  stated  that  an  actor  who  was   also  a  Sinn  Fein  member  was  prohibited  from  appearing  in  advertisements  for,  say,   washing  powder.     RTÉ  lost  its  appeal  to  be  censored  in  March  1993.  The  station’s  management  was  not   pleased,  though  the  NUJ  in  RTÉ  again  welcomed  the  result.  RTÉ  then  took  an   inordinately  long  period  in  which  to  institute  a  new  regime  of  what  turned  out  to  be   renewed  self-­‐censorship.  Joe  Mulholland  from  RTÉ  determined  that  a  Sinn  Fein   member  would  be  excluded  if  he  or  she  spoke  on  a  matter  on  which  Sinn  Féin   happened  to  have  a  policy.  Michael  Foley  in  the  Irish  Times  asked,  did  that  mean  a  Sinn   Féin  member  could  not  discuss  farming  matters  because  Sinn  Féin  had  an  agricultural   policy?  On  that  basis  Larry  O’Toole  was  still  banned.  RTÉ’s  was  intent,  it  still   appeared,  to  exclude  as  far  as  possible  any  member  of  Sinn  Féin  from  its  broadcasts.     In  early  January  1994  Channel  Four  from  Britain  and  RTÉ  broadcast  a  programme  on   media  coverage  of  the  troubles.  Channel  Four  wished  to  interview  O’Toole  on  his  High   Court  and  Supreme  Court  victories.  RTÉ  than  banned  O’Toole  again.  RTE  justified   itself  because  O’Toole  had  been  chosen  as  a  Sinn  Féin  candidate  in  European  elections   taking  place  later  in  1994.  Channel  Four  disagreed  though  it  had  operated  within   almost  identical  British  censorship  provisions  since  1988  (on  this  point  of  prohibiting   censored  organisation  representatives,  as  distinct  from  members,  from  being   broadcast).  O’Toole  was  not  only  banned  again,  he  was  the  last  Sinn  Féin  member   banned  before  the  government  lifted  Section  31  provisions  later  in  January  1994  (as   part  of  confidence  building  measures  before  the  August  1994  IRA  ceasefire).  The   minster  responsible,  a  long  time  critic  of  Section  31,  is  the  current  Irish  President   Michael  D  Higgins.  RTÉ  then  devised  yet  more  self-­‐censorship  provisions.   In  response  to  the  RTÉ  bulletin,  the  Repeal  Section  31  Campaign  issued  its  own  ‘No.   31’  bulletin,  dated  12  September  1992.  It  was  also  distributed  to  staff  (an  RTÉ  staff   directory  was  of  assistance).  The  campaign  responded  to  what  it  saw  as  erroneous   and  tendentious  points  in  the  RTE  management  document,  which  it  said  was  designed   to  ‘intellectually  terrorise  RTÉ  staff’  and  to  prevent  them  from  behaving  ethically  and   professionally.   The  Section  31  documents  and  letters  that  follow  were  written  by  me  in  my  capacity   as  Repeal  Section  31  Campaign  secretary.     I  hope  to  write  further  on  these  matters.     Niall  Meehan  11  May  2016   Iris Eolais na Foirne taft Information Bulletin Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ k TT aaZ1t !:aH.t!..n..9.!.., 0' Tool- "v- RT! ~Ud to 1!.tA,..YJ.t •.In th' I!J.Jb...£rul.tl. ., A. ,t.lf will bt aWlr., the "iR~ Court ll.t Friday, Ju1f 31,t, ,av, j~d.mnt in thl .bovt Ol, •• h~ d.olar.d that the ourr.n' Mtnt,tltiil Qrdtr Und.r S.otlon ~1 of the Broldg.,tinl Authority Aot. da •• no~ 'orbld the bro~dalt of m~ter1. Ipoken hy ~ plrlon 10j,1: on the ground. ~hft h$ 18 • memb.r of the Slnn rein p~rtYI Th. hllh C~urt went on lo dwallrt that nTE'. poltoy of not brQ'du~.t1n, interview. wltn membtr. of 81nn Fe1n on any m.ter~ (ahd it, d'O~l0n not to hrondOllt 1nterv1lw, w1th Mr, O'To~l ~lr10\.y) wa. bad in lAW, ~Y.r the ~It ~IW daYI heen .tudy1nl thl judl.mlnt in dotall with it! law,er., and hid deolded that, Itv,n the tnormOUI importln~ ot tht c~,. .nd duto dift~ul •• and lnconll.ttnclel whl~ ~p8lr to '~1.t In the writt.n Jud~.m'nt RT! t.,l, t~. it mUlt IGek the allrifle.tion ot tne Sup~ef Court, Ind for that puro~, 1. lOdl1na ~n A~p.l ilaln.t tht JUd •• ment. RTI ha. ~'Jor The Supreme Court il th. only forum in which RT! oan .tt • final elarificQtion on i.lut. tor RTI In thl way It 10 •• about new. ~nd ourrent ~fair. pr~I.Mln, in refortnot t~ ltv~ and reoorded pro'~Am." and In reference tu fllrn'"8 .nrt lmp.rti~ in thi' ar.a Qt prOl~mtn' Anothtr fO*tufe of thil 0'" Wt. tht jUdi'" t1nd1n, th., aT~'! over.~ ot th~ Oat.&U~ .trik. w•• unfair and not impartial bee,u.e the Aplic~nt'. interviewl wire not bro~dlt, The htar'n. w•• by WIY ot JUdioial hevlC~ Iround.~ on on! Ifflaa vit from the Appl!oant and. re.pondlnl aft&dlvlt on behllf uf ftTI. Sinoe oalltd ~nd there no ctQ"R thlR wa. a Jud1Qial Revilw, ne wi tn ••••• w,~ .xlmtn&~io , In comins to hit findlnl the judi' did not •• k for the dttftil of thl c/l:lvu.all- u -wdl)' broadout nor did h. live Anv indioUiOn that h' m1ahi. hlY\! OOn.ldertd the detlil of thil oov.rll' \Q b. r,l.vant. w., Btlff will bl ftWlrt of the ttrm. of thl Mlni,ttr1 .. 1 Or~. currently in foro., whloh hi. 't~,olv.y not ,It,rtd frem the Ordtr m.~ 1n 11ea. Th~t Ordtr wa. ••:.£~one)' where the Qonllldired in 19U by th' SUJ)umt Covrt '.n lhe S.1!..tt (~.t) v.lid~ty of auoh Ofdtr was upheld. The Supr.m6 Court acoepted 'vi~.ne (not contrlv,rtld by 11nn r.tn thoulh liv.n an o~r.0tuniY \0 ~o '0) tha\ Sinn r.1~ wa& oommitted to the poliOY of t.~ln p~w.r 'with I ~ftl& p.~r in this hnnct, and an .t~'l in thi. hand" and to tht dl ••• tabliehmtnt of both 8ta'~, North and 8outh. CIon t tnutd/ .. , Ulmhlr/Nvmbll eu oAQlnn na FOlrnt/8y It".onnll Oivl,IQn Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ Th. fol1owinl .tat.mtnt Q~ 11nn F~ln polley r.f,rr.d to ~n that Jud.tm.nt Ind ~n\'l.d In I PrQvi,loftal IRA Statf ~tpor, wa. not di.puttd by Sinn r.1n l ~ 'Sinn r.in .hould b. rftdiOlli •• d (undtr At~ dlr,ot~n) and and .hould I,ltat, afound .oolal and loonomio i,.ul~ which attaok the w.lfa,' of the p.ople. Sinn Feln .bould b, dir.ot.d tQ infiltrat' other or.ani.atione tQ w1n lupport tor and 'Y.P1th1 to the Mov,mtn\', Thi, and oth'r .vid.nce l,d th' Supreme Oourt to d•• orlb. Binn ',1n •• PrGvi.!~nl '.n ~nt"ral l~A' and d.pendtnt par\ of tht apparltu. ~t tb. lnd I. '~n evil and dln •• rOUB of,.Dllation who •• object w•• to overthrow 11 ntoe •• lry b1 tOto,', the 8tat. and it. in.t1tution" Oivtn th~ m,mb,r!hip of Rinn r.1n ln~ •• upportin, ihIJ, a1m. and pollcy obJeotive. an d the m,thod. whereby thlY are to b, ~qhltv'd. RTt hal ~on.it'ly ldherld to ot 81nn rein, the po.ltlgn that a breldOI.t , on any .ub j .ot , by any admitttd ~embGr 1, Gaplbl, of con.t1tutinl • broldoa.t r'~ •• entlnl thl view. or obJeotl of 81nn ,.in. In hQldinl that thil po.1t~n waf bad at law, the Hilh Court Judi' ~n hll judl'MInt a'llvered July 311t lilt bal not it ••• m. to nTI refetr.d to the Su~rem Court'. ol.~r and .tated vi,w of Sinn F,1n or ttl polloi.e, nor ha. he I~ •• r.d to addr.,. thl . cltLt ~t1on und,rl,in. RTI'. ourr.nt ~o.itn on Ind in~.r· ~f.tln of th, Statton 31 Ordtfl, nam.l, the Judl.ment. ,i vln unanimoully hy the fly, lu~r.m' Court Judi" in l;la Ind that any broado'lt , whatev,r the lmm.dtat. ~bj.ot of the broadoa.t, h1 • member Sinn rein oould it.tlf lmount to the advlnoe· m.D\ Of tht Sinn J,1n OlU*t, ftTZ ~. committ.d t~ o~'in, \0 the llw of the lftnd, The Supremt Court dlel.rl. that ~l finilly Ind onlu.i~ey, Give" thl Supreme court'. vi.w on the matter in 1DI ••nd 1~.n that I dto1.1on not to app,al will rt.ult in Sinn rein m.mbtr. b. ln, lnoludtd in .om. ftTI broadol.t., in \ht futur., it il nTE', o"lniQn that the Su~ rtm. Court .hould bloon.ult.d o~ ~h. i.,UI. It i. for thi. r ••• on that RTt h • d,aided to ~p'l the JU~I.mtn witho~ dtll1. 000 Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ Iris Eolais na Foirne STAFF INFORMATION BULLETIN Laurence O'Toole -V- RTE Judicial Review in High Court Correcting some errors in bulletin number 632 RTE staff will have read bulletin No.632 (issued 7th August) dealing with the High Court judgement which found RTE gUilty of illegal self-censorship. It was found that RTE was wrong to censor a person solely on the grounds that he/she is a mem ber of the Sinn Fein party. The judgement was welcomed by RTE journalists and by the Minister responsible for drafting Section 31 - both of whom criticised RTE management's self-censorship policy. Bulletin 632 contained some errors and misinterpreted the judgement L- The assertion that : "the judgement given unanimously by the five Supreme Court judges in 1982 .... that any broadcast.. .. by a mem ber of Sinn. Fein could itself amount to the advancement of the Sinn Fein cause" is not correct. The Supreme Court judgement (which was, contrary to remarks in Bulletin 632, referred to by the High Court) made no such statement. The term "member" did not cross the judges' lips. The term spokesperson or representative was used at all times. Chief Justice O'Higgins said that jr is the duty of the state to prevent broadcasts "which would be likely to have the effect of promoting or inciting to crime or endangering the authority of the state." He went on: "These are objective determinations and obviously the fundamental rights of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions cannot be curtailed on any irrational or capricious ground." The censoring of Larry O'Toole was irrational and capricious. Uimhir/number: 3] Feachtas ar son saoirse cainle Cunha Amach/issued 011:12 September, 1992 Available from : gcd.academia.edu/NiaIIMeehanlTeaching-Documents -2- If the Minister had meant to ban "members" and if the Supreme Court had sought to ban "members" they would have used the term. Indeed, the Minister responsible has pointed out that he deliberately did not intend to ban "members". It is not RTE's function to second guess or extend ministerial and judicial intentions, particularly where the curtailment of the free expression of convictions and opinions is proposed. L- The judge found that the arbitrary exclusion of a person from broadcasts solely on the grounds of membership of Sinn Fein was unfair, not impartial and unconstitutional. L-. Bulletin No. 632 makes tendentious and slanderous allegations about the implications of Sinn Fein membership in order to intellectually terrorise RTE staff and to prevent staff from thinking the matter through for themselves. It is a sad day when a supposedJy independent broadcasting organisation carries on a campaign against a political party, in order to mask a policy of illegal self-cen sorshi p. It is particularly reprehensi ble that R TE should make wild a1Jegations with regard to the supposed implications of mere membership of Sinn Fein. These could easily be construed as forms of felon-setting and character assassination. RTE staff, particularly those in programme areas, should maintain their professional independence and not be browbeaten by management scare-tactics. ~ "RTE is committed to obedience to the law of the land". It is currently the law of the land that RTE may not arbitrarily exclude a person from broadcasts, solely on the g~ounds of Sinn Fein membership. Any attempt by RTE management to do so is illega1. Should staff be prevented in any way from carrying out their professional duties in this regard by management they should demand a written explanation of such a refusal. Staff should also keep their own personal record of such incidences and pass them on to their trade uni on represen tative and to the La r r y O'Toole Free Speech Campaign, 33 Geraldine Street, D7 L... RTE state that it is merely "consulting" the Supreme Court on the OToole judgement. In fact RTE is seeking permission to apply censorship as widely and as extensively as possible. It is probably the only broadcasting organi.sation in the world, outside of totalitarian countries, to invite censorship and a curtailment of editorial freedom in this way. 000 Available From Níall Meehan: https:// Joe Mulholland, Head of News, RTE, Donnybrook, Dublin 4. www.academia.edu/25202543/ 31 Buttercup Park, Damdale, Dublin 17. October 30th, 1990 Dear Mr Mulholland , I was Chairperson of the Strike Committee during the recent dispute at the Gateaul( factory in Finglas. I was interv·iewed on silt occasions by RTE reporters in relation 10 the strike there. One of these interviews was broadcast on the FM2 12 noon news. I was interviewed on a number of occasions after that for news programmes. However, not one of these latter interviews was broadcast. It was finally confirmed to me by an RTE reporter on the 14th of August, 1990 that the reason my interviews were not broadcast is because 1 am a member of Sinn Fein. According to him t was censored under Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. As you are probably aware Section 31 prohibits interviews with, or broadcasts by, or on behaM" of, representatives of, or spokespersons for, Sinn Fein. I did not act in any of these capacities in relation to the Gateaul( Strike. The RTE interviews with me took place only because of my representative capacity as a spokespers_Q!J __ ~o . r . ~he Gateaux workers. My Sinn Fein membership was not relevant either to the interviews themselves or to the Section 31 censorship provisions. Please tell me whether, in your opinion, the interview with me broadcast by FM2 was a breach of the Ministerial Order under Section 31 of the Broadcasting act. Please el(plain in detail how you could possibly justify censoring me as spokesperson for the Gateaux workers under the Section 31 provisions. As you are possibly aware Gerry Adams MP was interviewed on the BBCI 9.00pm news on October 1st where he represented the people of West Belfast. I am aware that there are significant differences . between the Irish and British censorship orders. However, in relation to the distinction between membership of an organisation and acting in a representative capacity on its behalf they are similar. If the BBC can recognise this distinction why can't you? Larry O'Toole, copy to: Director General Dublin 4. Ireland Telephone 01 64311 1 Telefax 01 643080 Telex 93700 Direct line 01 64 Baile Atha Cliath 4. Eire Telef6n 01 643111 Telefax 0 1 643080 Teleics 93700 Une Dlreach 0 1 64 Radio Telefis Eireann Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ 6th December, 1990 Mr . larry O'Toole, 31, Buttercup Park, Darndale, Dublin 17. Dear Mr. O'T oole, I refer to your letters to the Director-General, RTE and myself and both dated 8th November, 1990. My letter to you dated 7th November referred to the Broadcast i ng Authority Act 1960 ( 5.31 ) Order 1990 which is c urre n t l y in force and advised you that RTE was explicitly obliged to comply with this Order and would do so. Any broadcast interview with you in August 1990 would not have been so broadcast by RT~ if it had known at the time of that broadcast of your association with an organisation referred to in the said Or der . urs sincet;ely, ' , h I r1~ / ; ' ')' : Il ,,: ' v _ J e Mulholland irector of News ~ ~ J -{}, - Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ During August 1990 the workers at the Gateaux Bakery in Finglas, 1~ 1 \ ~ I!o ' ~i ~ "'I ~'l1. North Dublin, were in dispute with their employer· the Allied Lyons Group of Britain. The workers in Gateaux elected a Strike Committee to defend their interests . They also elected Gateaux worker and Bakers Union National Executive member, Larry O'Toole, as the Strike Committee Chairperson. in other words as the Gateaux workers' chief spokesperson. The dispute gained a great deal of media attention in the newspapers and in broadcasting organisations such as RTE . After first broadcasting an interview with Larry O'Toole on the FM2 12 noon News. RTE thereafter banned Larry O'Toole from the airwaves. He was not allowed to represent the workers' point of view on RTE, even though he was the person the workers thought most qualified for the task. The reaSOn RTE's Head of News, Joe Mulholland. gave for censoring Larry O'Toole as the Gateaux workers' spokesperson is that "any person who is a MEMBER lour emphasisl of Sinn Fein ... will not be permitted to broadcast on any RTE programme" under any circumstances. In other words the completely irrelevant fact that Larry O'Toole happened to be an ordinary member of the Sinn Fein political pany was used to ban the Gateaux workers' spokesperson from the airwaves. In one of many letters to Larry O'Toole. Joe Mulholland. writing on RTE's behalf said that the government censorship Order under SECTION 3 1 OF THE BROADCASTING ACT prevents 'ATE from interviewing any person who happens to be a member of Sinn Fein. on any topic. under any circumstances. RTE's is an incorrect i nterpretation of its legal obligations under Section 31 . Section 31 DOES NOT BAN SINN FEIN MEMBERS FROM RTE. The mistaken impression that it does stems solel y from RTE's illegal extension of the Section 31 Order. In fa ct the Section 31 Order from the government censors any person who is acting in the capacity of SPOKESPERSON or REPRESENTATIVE of Sinn Fein. It does not apply to people such as Larry O'Toole who was solely representing and speaking on behalf of his co-workers in the Gateaux bakery. The fact of his Sinn Fein membership was completely irrelevant to his remarks on behalf of the Gateaux strikers . Even Conor Cruise O·Brien . the parliamentary architect of Section 31. agrees with Larry -~ O'Toole on this point (Irish News, 6 Oct. 1990; Sunday Tribune. 20 May. 1991). Larry O'Toole has taken the decision to ask the High Court for a judicial review of RTE's illegal extension of Section 31. This case is very important for those who believe that workers. community groups or other organisations should have the right to have their point of view expressed though their spokesperson. without interference from RTE or the State. A very important issue of civil liberties and democratic rights is at stake. The costs of undertaking such an action are in the region of £3 to £4.000 . and that is just larry O'Toole's legal costs! The Free Speech legal Fund. set up solely to publicise and pay for this case. is asking all those who can afford it to help pay for the establishment of an important legal and democratic principle. I Pledge £100 £20 0 Other amount 0 £... ...... . (please tick box) Signed ........................................................................ . Organisation ............................................................. . Address ...................................................................... . ..................................................................................... Address for correspondence: Free Speech legal Fund Handed to EBU members Dublin Castle 1 September 1992 Irish member of EBU wants more censorship in Irish broadcasting The larry O'Toole Free Speech Campaign welcomes members of the EBU to Ireland. The struggle against censorship and for free speech is international. It is the duty of broadcasters to oppose political censorship wherever and whenever it occu rs. Radio Telefis Eireann, which hosts the EBU working party, is unique among broadcasters. It argues for more, not less, censorship. RTE is appealing against an Irish High Court decision (31 July, 1992) which found that RTE was wrong to ban Larry O'Toole, a spokesperson for striking workers and National Executive Member of the Irish Bakers Un ion, from RTE programmes solely on the grounds that he is a member of the Sinn Fein political party . In Ireland, as in Britain, undemocratic state censorship laws ban broadcasts by persons representing Sinn Fein. The Irish High Court found that Larry O'Toole was not representing Sinn Fein when he was interviewed as the workers' elected spokesperson in his place of work in August 1990. RTE was found guilty of illegal selfcensorship. The widely reported court decision was welcomed by RTE journalists who condemned RTE for applying censorship laws too widely . It was also welcomed by the government minister responsible for drawing up the censorship measures in 1976. Yet RTE is now appealing in the Irish Supreme Court for permission to censor itself as much as possible. This is an RTE, not an Irish government, decision. In Britain the BBC, Channel 4 and lTV, who have tired to limit the use of political censorship, do not ban Sinn Fein members. They state specifically in their instructions to staff that there is a distinction between a spokesperson for Sinn Fein and someone who is merely a member, speaking in a personal capacity or on behalf of another organisation . While RTE might say publicly that they are seeking "clarification" their arguments in court attempt to justify selfcensorship in the most reactionary manner possible . We draw this matter to the attention of the EBU and hope you will put pressure on RTE to stop limiting freedom of expression. We also calion you to demand publicly that the Irish government abandon political censorship . Larry O'Toole Free Speech Campaign 33 Geraldine Street, Phibsborough, Dublin 7. O'TOOLE The winning team. END RTE CENSORSHIP Alteration of RTE 2FM poster advertising well known presenter 'Larry [Gogan]' by Larry O'Toole supporters Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ 

  Some  background  to  following  RTE  information  bulletin  and  to  a  replying  bulletin   from  the  Repeal  Section  31  Campaign.  They  were  distributed  to  RTÉ  staff  in  1992.   In  1992  RTÉ  lost  an  important  High  Court  case  in  which  it  was  determined  that  the   station  had  extended  censorship  provisions  under  Section  31  of  the  Broadcasting  Act.   A  Ministerial  Order  in  place  under  the  act,  as  amended  in  1976,  censored   spokespersons  for,  or  representatives  of,  Sinn  Féin  on  RTE  (plus  on  other  licensed   privately  owned  radio  stations  that  emerged  during  the  1990s).   In  ‘Laurence  [Larry]  O’Toole  versus  RTÉ’,  O’Toole  argued  successfully  that  RTÉ  was   wrong  to  censor  him  as  spokesperson  for  striking  bakery  workers  in  Finglas,  Dublin,   solely  because  he  was  a  member  of  Sinn  Féin.  RTÉ  had  in  effect  extended  the   censorship  provision  by  banning  all  Sinn  Féin  members,  whether  speaking  for  trade   unions,  as  in  O'Toole's  case,  other  organisations,  or  in  a  private  capacity.   O’Toole  established  his  argument  in  letters  back  and  forth  to  RTÉ  Head  of  News  Joe   Mulholland  in  1990  and  1991.  He  stated  that  as  a  worker  in  the  Gateaux  factory  in   Finglas  (where  the  strike  took  place)  and  as  an  executive  member  of  the  bakery   workers  trade  union,  he  was  not  representing  or  speaking  on  behalf  of  Sinn  Féin.  RTE   rejected  his  argument  and  stated  that  O’Toole  was  banned  because  he  was  an   ordinary  Sinn  Féin  member  (two  of  the  letters  are  attached).   When  the  High  Court  verdict  was  announced,  RTÉ  was  in  effect  ordered  to  liberalise   its  self-­‐censorship  regime.  Many  expected  that  the  station  would  be  relieved  that   more  freedom  of  speech  was  permitted  than  it  had  thought  possible.  The  NUJ   Broadcasting  Branch  in  RTÉ  welcomed  the  ruling  and  many  believed  management   would  follow  suit.     Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ Surprisingly,  that  turned  out  not  to  be  the  case.  RTÉ  appealed  the  ruling.  In  effect  RTÉ   appealed  to  be  censored,  despite  its  official  policy  of  opposing  Section  31.  RTÉ  also,   more  surprisingly,  refused  to  obey  the  High  Court  ruling.  O’Toole  therefore  brought   RTÉ  back  to  the  High  Court.  He  presented  the  RTÉ  staff  bulletin  as  evidence  of  RTÉ’s   refusal  to  comply  with  the  Court.  RTÉ  was  then  ordered  to  obey  the  ruling.  RTÉ   afterwards  applied  for  and  received  a  stay  on  the  ruling  pending  the  Supreme  Court   appeal.  RTÉ  appeared  determined  in  all  circumstances  to  maintain  as  harsh  a   censorship  regime  as  it  could  contrive  in  the  circumstances.   RTE  management  thought  it  wise  to  explain  its  stance  internally,  as  staff  expressed   discomfort  with  RTÉ’s  response  to  the  High  Court  ruling.  In  its  Staff  Information   Bulletin  (7  August  1992,  No.  632)  RTÉ  sought  to  justify  itself.  The  document  stated   that  RTÉ  was  seeking  ‘clarification’  from  the  Supreme  Court,  which  implied  a  neutral   or  even  a  benign  approach.     In  fact  RTÉ  had  no  intention  of  behaving  in  this  manner,  as  indicated  by  further   commentary.  RTÉ  implied  that  it  had  a  sort  of  police-­‐state  duty  to  exclude  Sinn  Fein   members  from  RTÉ,  who  allegedly  infiltrated  civil  society  organisations  on  behalf  of   the  illegal  Irish  Republican  Army.  RTE  amplified  this  approach  in  its  appeal  claim.   RTÉ’s  barrister  confirmed  it  in  the  Supreme  Court.  He  stated  that  an  actor  who  was   also  a  Sinn  Fein  member  was  prohibited  from  appearing  in  advertisements  for,  say,   washing  powder.     RTÉ  lost  its  appeal  to  be  censored  in  March  1993.  The  station’s  management  was  not   pleased,  though  the  NUJ  in  RTÉ  again  welcomed  the  result.  RTÉ  then  took  an   inordinately  long  period  in  which  to  institute  a  new  regime  of  what  turned  out  to  be   renewed  self-­‐censorship.  Joe  Mulholland  from  RTÉ  determined  that  a  Sinn  Fein   member  would  be  excluded  if  he  or  she  spoke  on  a  matter  on  which  Sinn  Féin   happened  to  have  a  policy.  Michael  Foley  in  the  Irish  Times  asked,  did  that  mean  a  Sinn   Féin  member  could  not  discuss  farming  matters  because  Sinn  Féin  had  an  agricultural   policy?  On  that  basis  Larry  O’Toole  was  still  banned.  RTÉ’s  was  intent,  it  still   appeared,  to  exclude  as  far  as  possible  any  member  of  Sinn  Féin  from  its  broadcasts.     In  early  January  1994  Channel  Four  from  Britain  and  RTÉ  broadcast  a  programme  on   media  coverage  of  the  troubles.  Channel  Four  wished  to  interview  O’Toole  on  his  High   Court  and  Supreme  Court  victories.  RTÉ  than  banned  O’Toole  again.  RTE  justified   itself  because  O’Toole  had  been  chosen  as  a  Sinn  Féin  candidate  in  European  elections   taking  place  later  in  1994.  Channel  Four  disagreed  though  it  had  operated  within   almost  identical  British  censorship  provisions  since  1988  (on  this  point  of  prohibiting   censored  organisation  representatives,  as  distinct  from  members,  from  being   broadcast).  O’Toole  was  not  only  banned  again,  he  was  the  last  Sinn  Féin  member   banned  before  the  government  lifted  Section  31  provisions  later  in  January  1994  (as   part  of  confidence  building  measures  before  the  August  1994  IRA  ceasefire).  The   minster  responsible,  a  long  time  critic  of  Section  31,  is  the  current  Irish  President   Michael  D  Higgins.  RTÉ  then  devised  yet  more  self-­‐censorship  provisions.   In  response  to  the  RTÉ  bulletin,  the  Repeal  Section  31  Campaign  issued  its  own  ‘No.   31’  bulletin,  dated  12  September  1992.  It  was  also  distributed  to  staff  (an  RTÉ  staff   directory  was  of  assistance).  The  campaign  responded  to  what  it  saw  as  erroneous   and  tendentious  points  in  the  RTE  management  document,  which  it  said  was  designed   to  ‘intellectually  terrorise  RTÉ  staff’  and  to  prevent  them  from  behaving  ethically  and   professionally.   The  Section  31  documents  and  letters  that  follow  were  written  by  me  in  my  capacity   as  Repeal  Section  31  Campaign  secretary.     I  hope  to  write  further  on  these  matters.     Niall  Meehan  11  May  2016   Iris Eolais na Foirne taft Information Bulletin Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ k TT aaZ1t !:aH.t!..n..9.!.., 0' Tool- "v- RT! ~Ud to 1!.tA,..YJ.t •.In th' I!J.Jb...£rul.tl. ., A. ,t.lf will bt aWlr., the "iR~ Court ll.t Friday, Ju1f 31,t, ,av, j~d.mnt in thl .bovt Ol, •• h~ d.olar.d that the ourr.n' Mtnt,tltiil Qrdtr Und.r S.otlon ~1 of the Broldg.,tinl Authority Aot. da •• no~ 'orbld the bro~dalt of m~ter1. Ipoken hy ~ plrlon 10j,1: on the ground. ~hft h$ 18 • memb.r of the Slnn rein p~rtYI Th. hllh C~urt went on lo dwallrt that nTE'. poltoy of not brQ'du~.t1n, interview. wltn membtr. of 81nn Fe1n on any m.ter~ (ahd it, d'O~l0n not to hrondOllt 1nterv1lw, w1th Mr, O'To~l ~lr10\.y) wa. bad in lAW, ~Y.r the ~It ~IW daYI heen .tudy1nl thl judl.mlnt in dotall with it! law,er., and hid deolded that, Itv,n the tnormOUI importln~ ot tht c~,. .nd duto dift~ul •• and lnconll.ttnclel whl~ ~p8lr to '~1.t In the writt.n Jud~.m'nt RT! t.,l, t~. it mUlt IGek the allrifle.tion ot tne Sup~ef Court, Ind for that puro~, 1. lOdl1na ~n A~p.l ilaln.t tht JUd •• ment. RTI ha. ~'Jor The Supreme Court il th. only forum in which RT! oan .tt • final elarificQtion on i.lut. tor RTI In thl way It 10 •• about new. ~nd ourrent ~fair. pr~I.Mln, in refortnot t~ ltv~ and reoorded pro'~Am." and In reference tu fllrn'"8 .nrt lmp.rti~ in thi' ar.a Qt prOl~mtn' Anothtr fO*tufe of thil 0'" Wt. tht jUdi'" t1nd1n, th., aT~'! over.~ ot th~ Oat.&U~ .trik. w•• unfair and not impartial bee,u.e the Aplic~nt'. interviewl wire not bro~dlt, The htar'n. w•• by WIY ot JUdioial hevlC~ Iround.~ on on! Ifflaa vit from the Appl!oant and. re.pondlnl aft&dlvlt on behllf uf ftTI. Sinoe oalltd ~nd there no ctQ"R thlR wa. a Jud1Qial Revilw, ne wi tn ••••• w,~ .xlmtn&~io , In comins to hit findlnl the judi' did not •• k for the dttftil of thl c/l:lvu.all- u -wdl)' broadout nor did h. live Anv indioUiOn that h' m1ahi. hlY\! OOn.ldertd the detlil of thil oov.rll' \Q b. r,l.vant. w., Btlff will bl ftWlrt of the ttrm. of thl Mlni,ttr1 .. 1 Or~. currently in foro., whloh hi. 't~,olv.y not ,It,rtd frem the Ordtr m.~ 1n 11ea. Th~t Ordtr wa. ••:.£~one)' where the Qonllldired in 19U by th' SUJ)umt Covrt '.n lhe S.1!..tt (~.t) v.lid~ty of auoh Ofdtr was upheld. The Supr.m6 Court acoepted 'vi~.ne (not contrlv,rtld by 11nn r.tn thoulh liv.n an o~r.0tuniY \0 ~o '0) tha\ Sinn r.1~ wa& oommitted to the poliOY of t.~ln p~w.r 'with I ~ftl& p.~r in this hnnct, and an .t~'l in thi. hand" and to tht dl ••• tabliehmtnt of both 8ta'~, North and 8outh. CIon t tnutd/ .. , Ulmhlr/Nvmbll eu oAQlnn na FOlrnt/8y It".onnll Oivl,IQn Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ Th. fol1owinl .tat.mtnt Q~ 11nn F~ln polley r.f,rr.d to ~n that Jud.tm.nt Ind ~n\'l.d In I PrQvi,loftal IRA Statf ~tpor, wa. not di.puttd by Sinn r.1n l ~ 'Sinn r.in .hould b. rftdiOlli •• d (undtr At~ dlr,ot~n) and and .hould I,ltat, afound .oolal and loonomio i,.ul~ which attaok the w.lfa,' of the p.ople. Sinn Feln .bould b, dir.ot.d tQ infiltrat' other or.ani.atione tQ w1n lupport tor and 'Y.P1th1 to the Mov,mtn\', Thi, and oth'r .vid.nce l,d th' Supreme Oourt to d•• orlb. Binn ',1n •• PrGvi.!~nl '.n ~nt"ral l~A' and d.pendtnt par\ of tht apparltu. ~t tb. lnd I. '~n evil and dln •• rOUB of,.Dllation who •• object w•• to overthrow 11 ntoe •• lry b1 tOto,', the 8tat. and it. in.t1tution" Oivtn th~ m,mb,r!hip of Rinn r.1n ln~ •• upportin, ihIJ, a1m. and pollcy obJeotive. an d the m,thod. whereby thlY are to b, ~qhltv'd. RTt hal ~on.it'ly ldherld to ot 81nn rein, the po.ltlgn that a breldOI.t , on any .ub j .ot , by any admitttd ~embGr 1, Gaplbl, of con.t1tutinl • broldoa.t r'~ •• entlnl thl view. or obJeotl of 81nn ,.in. In hQldinl that thil po.1t~n waf bad at law, the Hilh Court Judi' ~n hll judl'MInt a'llvered July 311t lilt bal not it ••• m. to nTI refetr.d to the Su~rem Court'. ol.~r and .tated vi,w of Sinn F,1n or ttl polloi.e, nor ha. he I~ •• r.d to addr.,. thl . cltLt ~t1on und,rl,in. RTI'. ourr.nt ~o.itn on Ind in~.r· ~f.tln of th, Statton 31 Ordtfl, nam.l, the Judl.ment. ,i vln unanimoully hy the fly, lu~r.m' Court Judi" in l;la Ind that any broado'lt , whatev,r the lmm.dtat. ~bj.ot of the broadoa.t, h1 • member Sinn rein oould it.tlf lmount to the advlnoe· m.D\ Of tht Sinn J,1n OlU*t, ftTZ ~. committ.d t~ o~'in, \0 the llw of the lftnd, The Supremt Court dlel.rl. that ~l finilly Ind onlu.i~ey, Give" thl Supreme court'. vi.w on the matter in 1DI ••nd 1~.n that I dto1.1on not to app,al will rt.ult in Sinn rein m.mbtr. b. ln, lnoludtd in .om. ftTI broadol.t., in \ht futur., it il nTE', o"lniQn that the Su~ rtm. Court .hould bloon.ult.d o~ ~h. i.,UI. It i. for thi. r ••• on that RTt h • d,aided to ~p'l the JU~I.mtn witho~ dtll1. 000 Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ Iris Eolais na Foirne STAFF INFORMATION BULLETIN Laurence O'Toole -V- RTE Judicial Review in High Court Correcting some errors in bulletin number 632 RTE staff will have read bulletin No.632 (issued 7th August) dealing with the High Court judgement which found RTE gUilty of illegal self-censorship. It was found that RTE was wrong to censor a person solely on the grounds that he/she is a mem ber of the Sinn Fein party. The judgement was welcomed by RTE journalists and by the Minister responsible for drafting Section 31 - both of whom criticised RTE management's self-censorship policy. Bulletin 632 contained some errors and misinterpreted the judgement L- The assertion that : "the judgement given unanimously by the five Supreme Court judges in 1982 .... that any broadcast.. .. by a mem ber of Sinn. Fein could itself amount to the advancement of the Sinn Fein cause" is not correct. The Supreme Court judgement (which was, contrary to remarks in Bulletin 632, referred to by the High Court) made no such statement. The term "member" did not cross the judges' lips. The term spokesperson or representative was used at all times. Chief Justice O'Higgins said that jr is the duty of the state to prevent broadcasts "which would be likely to have the effect of promoting or inciting to crime or endangering the authority of the state." He went on: "These are objective determinations and obviously the fundamental rights of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions cannot be curtailed on any irrational or capricious ground." The censoring of Larry O'Toole was irrational and capricious. Uimhir/number: 3] Feachtas ar son saoirse cainle Cunha Amach/issued 011:12 September, 1992 Available from : gcd.academia.edu/NiaIIMeehanlTeaching-Documents -2- If the Minister had meant to ban "members" and if the Supreme Court had sought to ban "members" they would have used the term. Indeed, the Minister responsible has pointed out that he deliberately did not intend to ban "members". It is not RTE's function to second guess or extend ministerial and judicial intentions, particularly where the curtailment of the free expression of convictions and opinions is proposed. L- The judge found that the arbitrary exclusion of a person from broadcasts solely on the grounds of membership of Sinn Fein was unfair, not impartial and unconstitutional. L-. Bulletin No. 632 makes tendentious and slanderous allegations about the implications of Sinn Fein membership in order to intellectually terrorise RTE staff and to prevent staff from thinking the matter through for themselves. It is a sad day when a supposedJy independent broadcasting organisation carries on a campaign against a political party, in order to mask a policy of illegal self-cen sorshi p. It is particularly reprehensi ble that R TE should make wild a1Jegations with regard to the supposed implications of mere membership of Sinn Fein. These could easily be construed as forms of felon-setting and character assassination. RTE staff, particularly those in programme areas, should maintain their professional independence and not be browbeaten by management scare-tactics. ~ "RTE is committed to obedience to the law of the land". It is currently the law of the land that RTE may not arbitrarily exclude a person from broadcasts, solely on the g~ounds of Sinn Fein membership. Any attempt by RTE management to do so is illega1. Should staff be prevented in any way from carrying out their professional duties in this regard by management they should demand a written explanation of such a refusal. Staff should also keep their own personal record of such incidences and pass them on to their trade uni on represen tative and to the La r r y O'Toole Free Speech Campaign, 33 Geraldine Street, D7 L... RTE state that it is merely "consulting" the Supreme Court on the OToole judgement. In fact RTE is seeking permission to apply censorship as widely and as extensively as possible. It is probably the only broadcasting organi.sation in the world, outside of totalitarian countries, to invite censorship and a curtailment of editorial freedom in this way. 000 Available From Níall Meehan: https:// Joe Mulholland, Head of News, RTE, Donnybrook, Dublin 4. www.academia.edu/25202543/ 31 Buttercup Park, Damdale, Dublin 17. October 30th, 1990 Dear Mr Mulholland , I was Chairperson of the Strike Committee during the recent dispute at the Gateaul( factory in Finglas. I was interv·iewed on silt occasions by RTE reporters in relation 10 the strike there. One of these interviews was broadcast on the FM2 12 noon news. I was interviewed on a number of occasions after that for news programmes. However, not one of these latter interviews was broadcast. It was finally confirmed to me by an RTE reporter on the 14th of August, 1990 that the reason my interviews were not broadcast is because 1 am a member of Sinn Fein. According to him t was censored under Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. As you are probably aware Section 31 prohibits interviews with, or broadcasts by, or on behaM" of, representatives of, or spokespersons for, Sinn Fein. I did not act in any of these capacities in relation to the Gateaul( Strike. The RTE interviews with me took place only because of my representative capacity as a spokespers_Q!J __ ~o . r . ~he Gateaux workers. My Sinn Fein membership was not relevant either to the interviews themselves or to the Section 31 censorship provisions. Please tell me whether, in your opinion, the interview with me broadcast by FM2 was a breach of the Ministerial Order under Section 31 of the Broadcasting act. Please el(plain in detail how you could possibly justify censoring me as spokesperson for the Gateaux workers under the Section 31 provisions. As you are possibly aware Gerry Adams MP was interviewed on the BBCI 9.00pm news on October 1st where he represented the people of West Belfast. I am aware that there are significant differences . between the Irish and British censorship orders. However, in relation to the distinction between membership of an organisation and acting in a representative capacity on its behalf they are similar. If the BBC can recognise this distinction why can't you? Larry O'Toole, copy to: Director General Dublin 4. Ireland Telephone 01 64311 1 Telefax 01 643080 Telex 93700 Direct line 01 64 Baile Atha Cliath 4. Eire Telef6n 01 643111 Telefax 0 1 643080 Teleics 93700 Une Dlreach 0 1 64 Radio Telefis Eireann Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ 6th December, 1990 Mr . larry O'Toole, 31, Buttercup Park, Darndale, Dublin 17. Dear Mr. O'T oole, I refer to your letters to the Director-General, RTE and myself and both dated 8th November, 1990. My letter to you dated 7th November referred to the Broadcast i ng Authority Act 1960 ( 5.31 ) Order 1990 which is c urre n t l y in force and advised you that RTE was explicitly obliged to comply with this Order and would do so. Any broadcast interview with you in August 1990 would not have been so broadcast by RT~ if it had known at the time of that broadcast of your association with an organisation referred to in the said Or der . urs sincet;ely, ' , h I r1~ / ; ' ')' : Il ,,: ' v _ J e Mulholland irector of News ~ ~ J -{}, - Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/ During August 1990 the workers at the Gateaux Bakery in Finglas, 1~ 1 \ ~ I!o ' ~i ~ "'I ~'l1. North Dublin, were in dispute with their employer· the Allied Lyons Group of Britain. The workers in Gateaux elected a Strike Committee to defend their interests . They also elected Gateaux worker and Bakers Union National Executive member, Larry O'Toole, as the Strike Committee Chairperson. in other words as the Gateaux workers' chief spokesperson. The dispute gained a great deal of media attention in the newspapers and in broadcasting organisations such as RTE . After first broadcasting an interview with Larry O'Toole on the FM2 12 noon News. RTE thereafter banned Larry O'Toole from the airwaves. He was not allowed to represent the workers' point of view on RTE, even though he was the person the workers thought most qualified for the task. The reaSOn RTE's Head of News, Joe Mulholland. gave for censoring Larry O'Toole as the Gateaux workers' spokesperson is that "any person who is a MEMBER lour emphasisl of Sinn Fein ... will not be permitted to broadcast on any RTE programme" under any circumstances. In other words the completely irrelevant fact that Larry O'Toole happened to be an ordinary member of the Sinn Fein political pany was used to ban the Gateaux workers' spokesperson from the airwaves. In one of many letters to Larry O'Toole. Joe Mulholland. writing on RTE's behalf said that the government censorship Order under SECTION 3 1 OF THE BROADCASTING ACT prevents 'ATE from interviewing any person who happens to be a member of Sinn Fein. on any topic. under any circumstances. RTE's is an incorrect i nterpretation of its legal obligations under Section 31 . Section 31 DOES NOT BAN SINN FEIN MEMBERS FROM RTE. The mistaken impression that it does stems solel y from RTE's illegal extension of the Section 31 Order. In fa ct the Section 31 Order from the government censors any person who is acting in the capacity of SPOKESPERSON or REPRESENTATIVE of Sinn Fein. It does not apply to people such as Larry O'Toole who was solely representing and speaking on behalf of his co-workers in the Gateaux bakery. The fact of his Sinn Fein membership was completely irrelevant to his remarks on behalf of the Gateaux strikers . Even Conor Cruise O·Brien . the parliamentary architect of Section 31. agrees with Larry -~ O'Toole on this point (Irish News, 6 Oct. 1990; Sunday Tribune. 20 May. 1991). Larry O'Toole has taken the decision to ask the High Court for a judicial review of RTE's illegal extension of Section 31. This case is very important for those who believe that workers. community groups or other organisations should have the right to have their point of view expressed though their spokesperson. without interference from RTE or the State. A very important issue of civil liberties and democratic rights is at stake. The costs of undertaking such an action are in the region of £3 to £4.000 . and that is just larry O'Toole's legal costs! The Free Speech legal Fund. set up solely to publicise and pay for this case. is asking all those who can afford it to help pay for the establishment of an important legal and democratic principle. I Pledge £100 £20 0 Other amount 0 £... ...... . (please tick box) Signed ........................................................................ . Organisation ............................................................. . Address ...................................................................... . ..................................................................................... Address for correspondence: Free Speech legal Fund Handed to EBU members Dublin Castle 1 September 1992 Irish member of EBU wants more censorship in Irish broadcasting The larry O'Toole Free Speech Campaign welcomes members of the EBU to Ireland. The struggle against censorship and for free speech is international. It is the duty of broadcasters to oppose political censorship wherever and whenever it occu rs. Radio Telefis Eireann, which hosts the EBU working party, is unique among broadcasters. It argues for more, not less, censorship. RTE is appealing against an Irish High Court decision (31 July, 1992) which found that RTE was wrong to ban Larry O'Toole, a spokesperson for striking workers and National Executive Member of the Irish Bakers Un ion, from RTE programmes solely on the grounds that he is a member of the Sinn Fein political party . In Ireland, as in Britain, undemocratic state censorship laws ban broadcasts by persons representing Sinn Fein. The Irish High Court found that Larry O'Toole was not representing Sinn Fein when he was interviewed as the workers' elected spokesperson in his place of work in August 1990. RTE was found guilty of illegal selfcensorship. The widely reported court decision was welcomed by RTE journalists who condemned RTE for applying censorship laws too widely . It was also welcomed by the government minister responsible for drawing up the censorship measures in 1976. Yet RTE is now appealing in the Irish Supreme Court for permission to censor itself as much as possible. This is an RTE, not an Irish government, decision. In Britain the BBC, Channel 4 and lTV, who have tired to limit the use of political censorship, do not ban Sinn Fein members. They state specifically in their instructions to staff that there is a distinction between a spokesperson for Sinn Fein and someone who is merely a member, speaking in a personal capacity or on behalf of another organisation . While RTE might say publicly that they are seeking "clarification" their arguments in court attempt to justify selfcensorship in the most reactionary manner possible . We draw this matter to the attention of the EBU and hope you will put pressure on RTE to stop limiting freedom of expression. We also calion you to demand publicly that the Irish government abandon political censorship . Larry O'Toole Free Speech Campaign 33 Geraldine Street, Phibsborough, Dublin 7. O'TOOLE The winning team. END RTE CENSORSHIP Alteration of RTE 2FM poster advertising well known presenter 'Larry [Gogan]' by Larry O'Toole supporters Available From Níall Meehan: https://www.academia.edu/25202543/