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.
Off topic but the thread on it was locked. What's going on with yer one Blathnaids personal injury case against RTE?
I suspect there are a few here who want to believe someone will beat him up, and he will lose to Twitter, without anything to support either. She published allegations online, serious allegations, then admitted they were false, why anyone would claim with certainty that he wasn’t defamed, and that he won’t be successful in suing Twitter for allowing the false allegations to be published is beyond comprehension. Nothing is certain.
Apologies, but the plaintiff hasn't proved that he was defamed
I never said he did. I said.
It's up to the plaintiff to provide proof he was defamed. Which he has.
It would be bizarre in the extreme if the legal strategy was to prove that the plaintiff was not defamed. Especially when they are not obliged to and especially given they have the person who made the claims state through their solicitor they lied.
They would have to disprove that "confession" and then prove all the original allegations were true.
Apologies, but the plaintiff hasn't proved that he was defamed. He has claimed he has been defamed. Not the same thing. He can only prove that in court. And he hasn't made it into the court as of yet.
Regarding the point you claim is moot, it's up to the court to decide if criteria have been met. Neither you nor I can say right now if that criteria will be met as we aren't in possession of the full facts nor are we aware of the law surrounding the matter. I'm sure there will be extensive legal argument on it if it makes it to court.
You don't think the veracity of the claims are important? Really? The whole point of the court case to establish the veracity (truthfulness, accuracy) of the claims in order to see if the defendant has been defamed. And then if he has been defamed, they then must decide to what extent has he been defamed, and how much compensation is adequate for said defamation.
I think he will take a case and he and his legal team probably feels Twitter will settle out of court. Irish defamation/libel laws are some of the toughest in the world.
Whether Twitter settle out of court, or not, is an entirely different matter.
The cynic in me thinks its a soundbite from McDermotts legal and PR people to try and salavage what is left of his reputation.
According to the media, papers have been lodged in the high court.
I assume this is easily verified.
He was attacked from behind by some guy after he left a pub in Clondalkin. Think it was back in 2016.
Lets see. Not a chance this reaches court and not a chance McDermott gets a payout.
If he were to take this case and lose it it would potentially ruin him.
Also the longer this is relevant the more chance questions will be asked directly to him of the nature of his relationship.
I would imagine EMD will bump into someone some night in ireland who isn't pleased with his behaviour and could end up in trouble, wasn't he attacked in Dublin previously ? On twitter, has anyone ever sued Twitter and won ? I don't recall any cases off hand
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not a scumbag.
A sleazebag would me more apt.
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.
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.
I think it's very odd.
Scumbag? No.
That’s not the constitution.
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
What particular part of the constitution says it’s ok to ride 17 year olds??
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.
No. I did not defend anyone.
I just reminded you that neither of them committed a crime by being in a relationship.
helto threadbanned
So yeah. A wind up merchant.
Take care sweetheart.
You're like one of those vigilantes who make a citizens arrest on a paediatrician 😂😂
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?
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a605da6df673e065ac5a7e976411f425.svg)
