A single character astray in a text of over 100,000 words in a book could be enough to launch an expensive libel action, the conference was told.
Mr Fergal Tobin of Gill and Macmillan, speaking on behalf of the Irish book publishers association, CLÉ, said: "I speak from personal experience, from an action settled for almost €100,000 when all the bills were paid because of one letter 's' that turned a singular noun into a plural.
"The book in question was scholarly and sober. Its subject matter was one of continuing historical and political interest. Yet a single flaw in this thoughtful, well-researched piece of writing cost the publisher eight times the net profit generated by the book."
He said that in practice, under current defamation law, the redress available to plaintiffs, "many of them flagrant opportunists", is out of all proportion to the offence caused. There were many cases where a publisher could not afford to fight the case in court and win it "because of the certainty that the defeated plaintiff would not be able to discharge our costs". If, under the new proposals, a plaintiff insisted on by-passing the fast-track procedure in order to have their day in the High Court, they should be required to show some evidence that they could cover the full costs of the action in the event of their losing, he said.
Most Irish book publishers are small business, and could not survive the sort of hit just described. "And so we have the chill effect: don't go there, don't publish in that area, don't turn over that stone. I knew for almost 20 years that many of the dramatis personae at the Moriarty and Flood-Mahon tribunals were deeply compromised. I did not go there. We have all not been going there for too long. That is the reality of the present law."
Mr Frank Cullen, co-ordinating director of National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI), said that a press regulated by Government and the courts was not a free press. The NNI was proposing an ombudsman based on the Swedish model. This would interface with the public and mediate where possible. Difficult cases could go to a press council, which would also have a function of maintaining standards and educating the public.
The NNI had consulted with regional newspapers, magazine publishers and the NUJ, and a steering committee had been set up to establish a self-regulating press council.
Mr Seamus Dooley of the National Union of Journalists said that the NUJ supported these proposals, but that achieving a consensus on a code of ethics for the press may not be easy.
"We cannot condone journalism based on cash for stories," he said. "We disown the corrupt practices engaged in by some media organisations driven by a commercial agenda of market share at the expense of journalistic standards.
"The code will also have to guarantee editorial independence and freedom from commercial interference by owners or advertisers," he said. He added that the NUJ would resist a press council appointed by the Government.
Ms Geraldine Kennedy, editor of The Irish Times, said that a press council needed to offer a way of dealing with complaints from the public that was quick and cheap.
Referring to the issue of the composition of the proposed press council, she said that it could be based on existing statutory offices, such as that of the Ombudsman, the president of the Human Rights Commission and the director of Consumer Affairs. Politicians would feel hard done by if there was no representation for the political interest, and this could be achieved by an all-party nominee from the Oireachtas.
Mr Louis Blom Cooper QC, who was the last chairman of the Press Council in the UK before it was replaced by the Press Complaints Commission, said that his two years' experience there taught him that self-regulation did not work. "However good the complaints body is, and however much its adjudications can be supported, it will always fail because the public itself will never accept its independence and adjudicatory function. But statutory does not mean unacceptable - it depends on what the statute contains. Being statutory does not mean being controlled by government."
He said two principles needed to be maintained: that it was not appointed by government, and that the body itself had no executive power or ability to impose sanctions.