He had a certain fan base here and some weren't gone on him.
He disappeared very fast last year and now he's about to sue Twitter.
I'll take that as an admittance of defeat. 😀
Do some research before posting. But defending McDermott without knowing the facts is very telling.
You think he's a scumbag right?
I know the facts.
You seem to be talking about some other 'case'
Here we have it. Finally one of the McDermott defenders comes out and says it. They want 27 year old men scouting school girls to be viewed as normal. For what reason they want this, we don't know but to the rest of us, you look creepy and disgusting.
When you are finding yourself on the same side of an argument as the incel movement, you really need to have a hard look at yourself.
I'm surprised you're able to go on so long.
You are an absolute liar. You've accused me of hating women, told people they are ok with sexual predators despite saying nothing of the sort, accused people of defending someone when they clearly haven't and called people incels.
Grow up.
When you don't believe in the Irish constitution, you need to have a look at yourself.
Like I said, I have a problem with 27 year old men preying on children but you clearly don't. That's irrelevant of the Irish constitution.
Bless your cotton socks.
I won't rise to your bait. You either are a wum tying to get the thread shut down or don't have the cognitive ability to see how wrong you are and are lashing out at the world you don't understand.
At what age should a girl be able to decide who she has sex with in your opinion? When did you lose your virginity and how old was the other person?
You're like one of those vigilantes who make a citizens arrest on a paediatrician 😂😂
So yeah. A wind up merchant.
Take care sweetheart.
helto threadbanned
No. I did not defend anyone.
I just reminded you that neither of them committed a crime by being in a relationship.
You mightn't be right about the failure of Twitter to remove the tweet in a timely manner under current legal directives. See Muwema v Facebook. There are no guarantees in court. Even though statements were acknowledged to be defamatory, Facebook weren't obliged to remove them.
http://www.cearta.ie/2016/09/reform-of-the-law-of-defamation-the-defence-of-innocent-publication-muwema-v-facebook-part-2/
There is also a defence of Truth available for defamation.
Section 16 of the Defamation Act 2009 provides that: it shall be a defence (to be known and in this Act referred to as the “ defence of truth”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought is true in all material respects.
You reckon the Judge won't allow Twitter to explore this aspect of the defence? While it mightn't succeed, I can't see a Judge putting a stop to it before it begins.
What particular part of the constitution says it’s ok to ride 17 year olds??
This is the legislation you are looking for, provided the 17 yr old consents of course.
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/act/15/section/3/enacted/en/html#sec3
That’s not the constitution.
I think it's very odd.
Scumbag? No.
The Irish Constitution establishes the Main Institutions of the Irish State, among them the Legislature, which has the power to make Laws. Articles 15 to 27 of the Constitution give this power to the national parliament or the Oireachtas. One of those laws is the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006.
The part that allows for legislation to be made.
the part that states legislation can be made by the oireachtas.
That legislation states that the age of consent for sex is 17.
Not a scumbag.
A sleazebag would me more apt.
And when I was referring to the constitution, I was in fact referring to article 40, which provides for the fundamental right of citizens.
particularly article 40, subsection 3 of the constitution.
1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.
2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.
Why would a judge allow twitter to explore the veracity of the claims when the plaintiff has a legal document stating they were false at least in part?
As for the case above, the Judge picked it to death through loopholes.
a person who has been defamed by an internet posting may be left without any remedy at all, unless the author is identified and amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court
Doesn't apply here, also the Plaintiff in that case gave interviews to the media about the allegations, that changes things considerably.
Exactly, Twitter would either be arguing that the girl was lying when she told her solicitor that the allegations were false, or investigating allegations which have nothing to do with the content published by the girl on its site.
The legal letter is a piece of evidence, it's not the 'be all and end all' of the case. And evidence is there to be examined. I'm not saying this is the case but the legal letter could be fake, could have been written under duress etc. It's only part of the picture. As is the existence or non-existence of media interivews etc.
(a) the intermediary service provider does not have actual knowledge of the unlawful activity concerned and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which that unlawful activity is apparent, or
(b) the intermediary service provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information.
It could well be the "be all and end all". But like I said we have no idea of the details of the case.
If you think Twitter are going to get the plaintiff onto the stand and go through the allegations line by line, that's not going to happen.
It could well be the 'be all and end all' of the case but my point is that the Judge most likely won't rule it out like you have suggested. It's veracity will have to be examined.
With respect, how do you know that Twitter won't get MDermott on the stand and question him about the allegations? Twitter are perfectly entitled to question McDermott if this goes to court. They may well question him on each and every item on the solicitor's letter.
My thinking though is that it won't get as far as court.
Because it's not up to the defendant in this case to fact find. It's up to the plaintiff to provide proof he was defamed. Which he has.
It's moot, as the case you pointed proves they are entitled under "innocent publication" to host defaming information, but they are also obliged to remove it if certain criteria is met.
The case will resolve around that criteria and not the veracity of the claims.
For the record twitter didn't remove it, the lady who made the allegations did.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a605da6df673e065ac5a7e976411f425.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
