I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
"European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders told the Oireachtas European Affairs Committee this afternoon that “frequent defamation legal cases, high cost of defence and high damage awards by Irish courts are seen as an inducement to self-censorship”"
"Reynders added that such a situation can also damage efforts from the media to highlight corruption."
This is what Mary-Lou is exploiting with her opportunistic defamation action. It is flabbergasting to read the constant defence of her.
Doing what MLMD has done has at the very least ensured that the alleged offending piece will be taken off RTE Player, therefore reducing the number of people who will hear it. As I said already, deeply worrying media manipulation. It also prevents the subject being raised again.
This is a well-known tactic used by celebrities and businessmen to date, and now being copied by Sinn Fein politicians. A bad development for our democracy. This defamation action clearly falls into the category of those that are designed to prevent media discussion.
As this paper says
"Across Europe, laws are being used by powerful and wealthy individuals in the hope of intimidating and silencing journalists who are disclosing inconvenient truths that are in the public interest. These legal threats and actions are crippling not only for the media but for our democracies."
What you are defending is a threat to democracy.
As did a certain TD when she filed for a personal injury for falling from a swing. If you support one, then support the other. I support neither.
`
It sure is a strange way of shining a spotlight on it Francie. Nobody can ascertain what the offence might be from the video. The "injured party" has refused to say what it was and has instead initiated legal proceedings which prevents the "other side" from discussing it.
Kind of like the way you get these "celebrities" in the UK shining a spotlight on their misdemeanors by getting a super-injunctions which prevent any reporting of the misdeameanour or of the existence of the injunction preventing them from talking about it!
It's 'not' doing what?
It is reviving the story and bringing a powerful spotlight on it.
That it's an attempt to shut down the story is just stupid nonsense.
No it is not, it is making sure that Sinn Fein and Mary Lou shut down the media, dare to question or comment on them and if they don't like it then they will sue....
I seem to recall a situation about 10 years ago when a certain promotion company, maybe something to do with music, was suing an online forum for some reason and as a result it was not allowed to mention them at all.
And another case where a company, who had a partner who was someone's daddy, also had mention of their company shut down from any online discussion under the threat of expensive litigation.
Rolling out the big guns to suppress information and try try to control the narrative and allow space for your own propaganda isn't solely limited to politicians. It just happens that most decent people would see the issue with politicians who do that. Obviously not all people are decent though
A person or organisation with a big war chest behind them can still bully you into submission as they know they can drag you into a war of attrition that will destroy you before it ends, even when you likely win.
I didn't defend or condone what she has done.
Do you favour removing somebody's right to seek redress if defamed? Yes or no?
Sounds very undemocratic if you do.
@blanch152 "People like Mary-Lou and Denis O'Brien engage in this kind of behaviour all the time."
Has MLMD a history of defamation cases? I hadn't heard of others (genuinely - I'm not saying they don't exist). Any links to these other cases seeing she does it all the time?
You are defending Mary-Lou taking a defamatory action, for which there is no supporting evidence, in a blatant attempt to silence the media commentary and free speech in relation to politics. Not a good look, Francie, not a good look.
At the very least, if you have any belief in democracy and free speech, you should be expressing concern, if, like me, you have heard the interview, you should be very worried about this blatant action.
FFS, that doesn't even make a modicum of sense.
Doing what MLMD has focused attention on whatever the story was. It was long gone out of focus.
A bonkers hypothesis.
???
blanch, I am NOT taking the case.
Jaysus, the shark is getting jumped over and back here today. 😁
So until you have evidence, RTE are innocent, and the case should be dropped. That is all that one can say until you see the evidence, if there is any.
No, she doesn't.
People like Mary-Lou and Denis O'Brien engage in this kind of behaviour all the time. They send solicitor's letters threatening defamation, they commence cases that they never intend to pursue. It is media manipulation, designed to get the stories they don't like out of the public eye. It is a threat to democracy.
Bad when it is coming from a leading businessman, far worse when it is coming from a leading politician.
However, your cognitive dissonance will allow you to defend Mary-Lou and attack Denis O'Brien. Blatant politicking on behalf of a political party.
You've stated a few posts above that MLMD's claim is "frivolous" and "opportunistic" without even knowing what her claim is and here you are talking about "balance". Do you not see the cognitive dissonance??
MLMD will be required to produce evidence in a court of law, in what way, shape or form is that threatening to free speech?
If she wins, she will have been correct to bring the claim.
If she loses, she will have huge legal fees to pay, which I would imagine would put most people off making frivolous claims through the courts.
What is your specific issue with this?
Is that not obvious from the statement I made?
You jumped to a conclusion from what at best is guesswork in the media - 'i.e. 'it is understood...'
She has every right to make the charge.
How on earth is she attacking 'free speech' when we don't know the speech she has issue with and we don't know if the speech was libelous, as in, not 'free' as such?
You picked sides on page one.
So like me, you have heard nothing to justify MLMD's defamation action.
I'm neither defending MLMD nor RTE.
I don't even know who may have uttered the offending words.
Nor do you.
The allegation is against RTE. They are innocent until proven guilty, and there is a very high threshold of proof.
Until Mary-Lou produces evidence, the balance of the doubt goes to RTE, and the concerns about the threat to free speech are the most important factor.
Those defending Mary-Lou attacking free speech are the ones making judgement.
What was the outcome of each of these cases?
Read again, your mantra means you should be defending RTE not Mary-Lou. However, you have switched principles again because Sinn Fein.
Therefore, we cannot make any claim regarding innocence, or maliciousness.
Now, unless you have some concrete evidence that this is in relation to the interview you have stated......................Over to you.
I've asked this questions multiple times and no one has been able to show anything concrete as to what the case relates to.
Read slowly - Can you point to what claim MLMD is making and what she is seeking?
No you can't.
QED
No, it wouldn't be discriminatory under discrimination legislation.
Under broadcasting legislation, and the need to be impartial, it would be sufficient for RTE to offer an alternative SF spokesperson the opportunity to speak for Sinn Fein. Perhaps Violet-Anne, oops she's gone, maybe some other prominent female spokesperson?
You do not know the details of the claim. Since page one you have been hounding MLMD and supporting RTE.
Even if completely baseless, comparing it to a boozy TD with drink in each hand, falling off a swing, is unbelievable. How do you keep a straight face?
Very well said.
Anyone who is defending Mary-Lou's actions in this regard when they are unable to point to a single defamatory aspect of the radio interview is against free speech, against free democracy and is only interested in the tyranny or oppression of freedom.
I couldn't care less if MLMD wins or loses. Calling out hypocrisy and false claims, (the irony) does not a shinner make. I know claiming everyone is a shinner and out to get you is a comfort, but sometimes inward reflection is the way government parties should go.
Mary-Lou's claim is even more frivolous and opportunistic as not a single person on here, including many who heard the interview, have been able to point to a single part of it that might even come close to being defamatory.
If that is not the definition of frivolous and opportunistic, I don't know what is.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0842576c7f02baca869193aa78c1e1c2.svg)
