It's an irony of political debate in Ireland that as voting day comes around, debate on regulated media outlets closes down.
While Ireland's broadcast moratorium has been a part of our election and referendum furniture for nearly three decades, more recently it has become subject of much debate.
The rule, which states that TV and radio stations cannot broadcast any story which may influence an election or referendum from 2pm on the eve of the vote until when polling stations close the following day, is championed by supporters as a way to ensure the public is given breathing space to decide how to vote without undue outside influence.
However, it is criticised in equal measure by opponents, who say it simply limits the sharing of potentially key information to voters and is both dated and out of step with a world where social media has free reign.
Last July An Coimisiún Toghcháin, which oversees the holding of elections in Ireland, took a position on the moratorium and recommended it "should be removed from the guidelines for radio and television broadcasters before the next electoral event".
And following on from that decision, in early in August Coimisiún na Meán, which regulates TV and radio broadcasting in Ireland, initiated a month-long public consultation on the future of the broadcast moratorium as part of a wider review of it functions in a changed media landscape.
The deadline for submissions is next Wednesday, 4 September.
A decision by An Coimisiún on the moratorium will follow in late October, and submissions it receives will play a role in its consideration on whether to keep, remove or amend it.
That means new rules could be in place in time for the next general election.
Read more: RTÉ calls for removal of broadcast moratorium for elections
Existing rules
The existing rules around the broadcast moratorium are straightforward.
Under the current system, from 2pm the day before polling day TV and radio stations are not allowed to broadcast any story or information which could be construed as influencing the outcome of the vote.
That rule for TV and radio stations stays in place until polling stations close the following day, with 10pm the standard cut-off point.
While during that period TV and radio stations can report on voter turnout and basic, practical details of an election, or referendum day such as which politicians turned up and when, any on-air discussion of topics such as policies, candidates or individual parties campaigns themselves is strictly prohibited.
However, that same restriction is not in place for any non-broadcast coverage. Newspapers, websites - including in theory www.rte.ie - and social media discussions are not subject to restrictions other than those they may choose to place on themselves.
The moratorium was first included in broadcasting guidelines for the 1997 presidential election.
What's the problem?
Other than grumbling from some TV and radio stations over the situation, the issue had largely been confined to internal media debate.
But in March the long-standing broadcast moratorium rules were thrown into a very real modern dilemma, when a story broke online that shone the spotlight on whether existing rules should still apply.
Just as the broadcast moratorium shutters came down on TV and radio stations for the family and care referenda, The Ditch website revealed that it had obtained leaked legal advice to Government from the Attorney General Rossa Fanning.
Included in the Attorney General's 12 page advice document was a view that it would be "difficult to predict with certainty" how the courts would interpret the concept of "durable relationships". Much debate on the meaning of durable relationships had taken place throughout the referendum campaigns.
It was a scoop for The Ditch, and an important one at that.
However, while the original reporting was accurate, some of the social media debate which followed was not. And while some newspapers and websites attempted to provide the facts, the broadcast moratorium meant that TV and radio stations were unable to report on it whatsoever.
The example underlined the complications of the broadcast moratorium in a modern media age.
What does the moratorium review involve
An Coimisiún decided to examine the role of the broadcast moratorium and how it compares to arrangements in our European and North American neighbours.
According to An Coimisiún, there is "no clear international consensus on electoral silence periods" for TV and radio outlets, and very few countries attempt to enforce "silence periods" on social or digital media as it is accepted that such an enforcement would be "generally weak".
Of 31 countries the Coimisiún examined, 10 - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and the US - impose no restrictions whatsoever.
However, the remaining 21 do, including nine countries - Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Portugal and Romania - who, like Ireland, impose a "silence period" of at least 24 hours.
Five more countries - Bulgaria, Czechia [formerly Czech Republic], Hungary, Luxembourg and Slovenia - impose restrictions on opinion polls in the lead up to an election, while others including Australia, Cyprus, France, Italy, Spain and Slovakia also limit the coverage of opinion polls in the days before a vote.
Based in part on this examination of how other countries approach the days before a vote, An Coimisiún said a public consultation on the future of the moratorium was needed.
That public consultation began at the start of this month and is due to end next Wednesday, 4 September.
The full 34-page consultation document is available at www.cnam.ie, but it in reality boils down to the public being asked to give its view on five options as to what should happen next.
Those options are
* Keep the moratorium without any changes
* Lengthen or shorten the moratorium period
* Change the moratorium so that it covers a more limited type of broadcast coverage
* Remove the moratorium and replace it with a "positive obligation" rule which would put the onus on broadcasters to take extra care with material relating to an election or referendum
* Remove the moratorium and not replace it
What do experts have to say?
While the broadcast moratorium has supporters and opponents among the general public, experts in the fields of politics and media are generally speaking in favour of its removal or amendment.
RTÉ News contacted three well-known academic specialists in these areas to gauge their views on what they believe should happen next.
They include David Farrell, Professor of Politics at UCD's School of Politics and International Relations, who was clear in his opinion.
"I don't see the point of it [the moratorium]. It would seem to me the moratorium should never have existed," he said.
"We expect the highest standards from journalists in terms of balance and fairness, and that should be the case in any reporting, whether the moratorium is there or not," he added.
Jane Suiter, Professor at DCU's School of Communications and director of the Institute for Future Media, Democracy and Society, has a similar view, saying the existing moratorium in her opinion creates "an unlevel playing field" between broadcast media and social media.
"I don't think you can regulate different media in different ways.
"What happened in March [reporting of the leaked attorney general advice during the moratorium] is a good example. Not all of the debate around it was untrue, but it [the information] was confusing and there was a need to put it in context.
"There should be an opportunity to people working in broadcast to come back in in those circumstances and contextualise new information, because otherwise under a moratorium there is a real incentive to put out new information or disinformation late," she said.
NUI Maynooth lecturer and well-known expert on voting trends, Adrian Kavanagh is more circumspect on the future of the broadcast moratorium.
"I don't think I'd fight tooth and nail" to keep it, he says "there are pros and cons to both sides", including the fact the existing rules "allow people to make a decision" in peace and to "allow space" for the media to focus on key practical issues such as voter turnout.
However, he too says concerns exist, in particular the fact that while "one of the pros of the moratorium is that you can't drop in fake news on TV and radio" at the last minute, "you can do it on social media", an issue he said is largely unpoliceable.
Those views are largely shared by RTÉ itself, one of a number of media outlets to make submissions on the matter to An Coimisiún.
"It is RTÉ's view that Coimisiún na Meán should adopt option five, that is, the abolition of the moratorium for election/referendum coverage,"the submission by RTÉ's head of compliance and editorial standards Brian Dowling states, arguing that RTÉ and other broadcast media should be trusted to be fair and balanced in its coverage.
"If a story based on misinformation or disinformation emerges in what would be the moratorium period, broadcasters should have the editorial freedom to report on this and bring relevant facts into the public domain. This is central to the democratic process in the digital era," the submission read.
What happens next?
RTÉ's submission is of course just one of many, and while An Coimisiún declined to confirm the exact number of submissions it has received until the public consultation closes, it does say interest has been significant.
Once that public consultation window does close on Wednesday, the media watchdog will examine all views on the existing broadcast moratorium before making its decision on whether the broadcast moratorium will be retained, removed or altered.
When the decision comes in October it will be enforceable immediately as An Coimisiún's rules are codes that are complied with rather than based on Dáil or Seanad legislation - meaning any potential changes are likely to be in place in time for the next general election.
