I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
Because, the suggested interview segment RTE news say its about doesn't look like defamation
I suggest you take it up with RTÉ news (the actual defendant) if you're not accepting their language or that they know
Everyone not involved in a charade that the segment involved isn't the one linked in this thread is discussing it
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mcdonald-s-legal-action-against-rt%C3%A9-worrying-says-journalists-union-1.4863604
You keep forgetting 'in my opinion'. And that is all it is, 'your opinion' which is not absolute.
RTE, the defendant, have made no comment as is their consistent policy with legal actions.
You've no idea about the details as they've not been disclosed by either party. In terms of 'frivolity' or 'mis-step' that is never the case if the legal action is successful, as it almost certainly will be in this case. MLMcD did not take this action lightly and will undoubtedly have been well advised. This is also a wise move in the slow build-up to a general election. Any lies used by opposition politicians regarding her that led to the action won't be repeated during the formal campaign.
And personally I'm not a Shinner, gave my local candidate Mairead Farrell a fourth preference vote in the last election. As an ex-lawyer what I take issue with is an ignorance of the law displayed heere by yourself and a couple of other posters. In terms of the MLMcD outcome it's pretty clear.
She's smart. She'll win.
RTE is the defendant. Not RTE News, a part of the corporation. You do not sue individual journalists or the programme makers. You do not sue the sports section of the Irish Times. You sue the organisation. A very very clear difference.
Again, another strawman argument about me having issue with somebody using their rights. That isn't what I posted anywhere.
Instead of makey-up strawman arguments, address the points I actually make.
Do you not believe the NUJ that this particular case could have a chilling effect on press freedom?
You have found against MLMD, that is far too early to say. It's merely your opinion, which always finds against the defendant and her party.
So large pinch of salt shall be consumed with said opinion.
It might. And it could have a chilling effect on a person's right to a good name.
Holocaust denial I believe
You don't know any of that actually
I asked earlier is it conceivable that the leader of SF was not aware of the circumstances asked about in the segment
A court will need to decide that and in my opinion going to court risks the airing of a considerable amount of RTÉ archived investigative material
Journalists have been píssed off now
I'm surprised to be honest at the mis step in advice on how to handle this
Opening a potential hornets nest of up to now possibly un published material which can be reported on in court proceedings seems stupid to me
It is exactly because we are unaware of the details that I have a problem with the legal action.
Today is World Press Freedom Day and we should reflect on the words of the NUJ in relation to the SLAPPs issue.
"The NUJ has condemned the use of Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) by the wealthy and powerful to silence and intimidate journalists, through legal challenges. Lawfare/SLAPPs are used as methods of influencing journalistic content and present a significant threat to media freedom."
We don't know what Mary-Lou's defamation case is about which gives it the hallmarks and appearance of a SLAPPs case. The only way to change that appearance is to reveal what the case is about.
In my opinion, Mary-Lou isn't interested in winning a case, she in interested in censoring reporting on Sinn Fein.
So you disagree with the NUJ then?
No, I just agreed with them blanch. It 'could' have that effect. But I also added a point they seem to have missed in protecting themselves. Would you agree with that point? Do we want a media where journalists are free to say what they want and people are 'chilled' into silence and fear of losing?
Cuts both ways.
Do read posts when somebody takes the trouble to engage with you
So your own kangaroo court has decided she shouldn't have the right to sue? You can't claim to support her right to Sue and then hound her based on your beliefs on the case. Well you can and do but its not credible.
I predict that Mary-Lou will publicly drop the legal action saying she doesn't want to damage press freedom, while privately sending solicitor's letters to RTE warning them not to repeat the defamation.
The effect will be the chilling one that the NUJ are concerned about. Unless RTE get their day in court, they won't be able to expose what I believe Mary-Lou is up to.
Is this one of those times were you support a union?
So you agree with them that the legal action is worrying.
You can understand the concern being expressed on this thread then.
ROFL...'concern'?
You have clearly tried the case and found against MLMD blanch, stop slipping and diving, nobody is fooled.
I can't outline any case presented by Mary-Lou because having listened to a number of interviews on the RTE website, I cannot find any example of where Mary-Lou might have been defamed, which just supports my opinion that she is engaged in a SLAPPs exercise.
'Concern', ROFL,
A smart move by MLMcD as you will soon see. Either a settlement and apology from RTE or a court success. A decision not taken lightly nor without a very high percentage chance of success. That’s how litigation specialists work.
You misunderstand the role and function of the courts then. They resist the role of censor as is evident from precedent.
They’ve consistently upheld the freedom of the press but punished libellous or slanderous reportage.
Only smart if RTE capitulate
If they don't,it's a major mis step
Where did I mention the role and function of the courts? The legal action in and of itself is worrying to the NUJ and could have a chilling affect on press freedom according to them.
It's worrying to the NUJ for the same reason rogue solicitors are worrying to the Law Society.
Journalists being challenged and found against is never a good look for a trade organisation which is what the NUJ is.
Journalists telling the truth and not driving agendas have little to fear.
Francie, I posted a link earlier about a journalist being unable to report on Jimmy Saville due to the knowledge that Jimmy had the resources and connections to have legal might behind him.
I take it you support Jimmy Saville's ability to have been able to bully the press into publishing the stories about him?
I mean, he was only asserting his right to maintain his good name - right?
And I said that there were many many many cases where the press in the UK defamed people.
I take it you aren't in favour of that?
Did you ever fecking hear of 'balance' Donald? The balancing of rights?
No that's fair enough Francie. If you support(ed) Jimmy then you support(ed) Jimmy.
Albert Reynolds took a case against them and won 1p - upgraded to 1 pound on appeal. He didn't have Jimmy's contacts though!
Jesus. The state of that post. Disgraceful.
You've made it clear Francie that your opinion is that once a person has a right to do something, that they cannot be criticised for doing it. Nor can the system be criticised. You'll support them regardless of their possible motivations for doing so
I made it clear I support the 'right' to take a case.
If you haven't the wit to work out the difference between that and 'supporting the person' that is your problem.
But that is where the argument begins and ends for you with this case involving MLMD. You won't hear any negative view against her or view on possible motivations. The fact that she has a right to do something is enough for you. Nobody questioned her right (even though you keep accusing them of doing so)
Likewise, litigious Jimmy would likely have threatened the newspapers. In the end, the fact that he was so trigger happy was enough for them to know not to risk it. He was also only asserting his rights. So they didn't even attempt to publish on him. It can be quite an advantage to get that litigious reputation!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/fd886e8068d0cf75a5ff800614b8489e.svg)
