I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
You like your echo chambers then mark? I always know the arguments are flimsy when you start counting posts.
If you have zero interest in judging the case, why are you entering the discussion.
By claiming that Mary-Lou has no case to answer, you are judging the case.
Completely clear and plain what you have been doing, and that is judging the case.
A discussion with 3 people doing this.
You took offence earlier about the term media, guess you have moved on from that now.
We can't ask Mary-Lou, it's clear from her actions and what others have done in these cases that it's pursuing a SLAPPS.
But now you can't make any opinions unless you ask politicians directly.
So there's that I guess.
And doubling down on poor little SF and the reverse-SLAPPS, this is completely and utterly delusional, this is at odds with the reality in which everybody else lives and breathes.
And refusing to listen to the evidence and still believing your opinion counts.
So now we have:
The second is trolling you realise, you have basically admitted to being a troll.
I'm not sure you'll be able to live this down.
But you will try.
Excuse me?
What 'evidence' do you have other than your biased opinion.
I could say you are expounding your suppositions here in order to troll if I was petty enough.
You took 30+ pages to admit what the case was about after posting continually and now refuse to engage with the available evidence yet still continue to stifle discussion about the available evidence.
Those that do so typically live under a bridge.
You have spent your whole time on this thread about the absence of evidence.
"Absence of evidence is unusually strong evidence that something is at least rare, though it’s not proof. Sometimes you catch a coelacanth."
Applying those principles to the current scenario, we can conclude that essentially, when a politician or businessman or other public figures takes a defamation case and there is no evidence as to what the defamation case is about, it is unusually strong evidence that it is a SLAPPs case. Not proof, as those who defend the politician/businessman/public figure can produce the reasons for the case and show that media commentary is continuing, but until those who defend it produce that evidence, the appearance of SLAPPs, consistent with the evidence, is the reasonable conclusion.
I STILL have no idea what the case is about. I prefaced everything with 'if this is what it is about'.
There is no 'available evidence'. Plenty of supposing though.
How am I 'stifling discussion'? Are you saying you want a free run to posit what you want? An echo chamber?
It also appears to be a standard defamation case.
Until we know different that is how I see it.
you are entitled to your opinion too, before I get accused of attempting to 'stiffle' you
It doesn't actually, I have explained that in nine points that you refuse to engage with.
You make the camel with the head in the sand look like the most aware and alert person in the world.
Why the invective?
It looks like a straightforward defamation case, filed like many cases before it.
When it becomes clear what the case is about, why the claimant feels they were defamed etc, I will comment.
Francie, you are alone in thinking that it looks like a straightforward defamation case. It has all the characteristics of a SLAPPs case.
How do you know I am alone? Making stuff up again?
On a discussion forum you expect people to engage with the data and comment on what it could mean.
This is not engaging, this is stifling and trying to shut down discussion, the funny thing is that you probably have listened to the evidence, but as with taking 30 pages to mention Mairia Cahill, are too afraid to say what it might mean:
Anyway, ignoring the troll.
It seems that MLMD has taken the case in order to try and silence Mairia Cahill, it doesn't seem like something the leader of a political party would do. It also seems that SF are running scared of what further might come out here, engaging and abetting abusers is not a good look going into an election (well, for most parties of government).
Hopefully the whole SLAPPS process will be legislated away soon and prevent these types of cases happening in secret in the future.
Oh not at all, but seeing as the interview itself is what is the core of what is being discussed, one would think they would listen to it seeing what the deal was...... yet you have not bothered.
Its like not watching a Film yet constantly commenting on a bad review from a critic.
'Afraid'?
Why would I be afraid when I was involved in many many pages of the discussion on MC?
Is your imagination running away with you?
I'm not commenting on the case and wouldn't even if I had heard the interview.
Far as I am concerned a person's right to redress trumps any fearmongering about SLAPPS.
If that turns out to be the case then she deserves criticism.
It is as clear as day that SF and MLMD want to draw some Putin-esque line in the sand when it comes to media relations, censorship and the history of SF/PIRA. That the leader of the opposition should sue the national broadcaster for something a panellist said, which was a nothing comment anyway, shows us that SF/PIRA and MLMD want to try and make bringing up the history of SF, the PIRA, Maria Cahill and all that a punishable offence.
Numerous journalists who would be normally quite kind to SF have come out against this. The national union of journalists to have said this is a disturbing development. Anyone who wants to live in a free and open society, where transparency of power should be at the forefront of the nation, should be against this action.
Yet, the usual crew are working overtime to try and whatabout it away.
Yet here you are, criticising those who think this is a power play from MLMD and SF.
Yep, criticising those who convict without detail or on foot of allegations. Fairly consistent behaviour from me since I joined the site.
I STILL have no idea what the case is about.
Literally 10 minutes later (you can see the timestamp)
Laughable to be honest.
Weren't you going on about the admins and mods having a pro-royalist agenda back in the day, with no evidence to back up that wild accusation?
The fact that now, you are trying to portray yourself as the paragon of neutrality as if this thread is the High Court reaks. We all know the agenda at play here.
Couldn't even be arsed to spend 10 minutes listening to the RTE segment under discussion here.
Zero credibility. Plain to see people not engaging in good faith.
Can either of you post where MLMD, the Courts, or RTE confirmed that this interview is the crux of the defamation. Not, we understand. Not, it is understood. Something legal that shows that this is the show at the centre of all this.
'Pro-royalist'?
Doubt I ever used that phrase in my life.
And neither do I see the relevance here. But then the argument has been flimsy for a while now.
The journalists who aren't able to say (because of the SLAPPS) are inferring this is where the defamation action is coming from. An official response is impossible because of the SLAPPS process MLMD has used to hide what is being sued about (although this has been mentioned lots of times already in the thread, in between the posts from trolls trying to get people to stop discussing the case).
But everybody knows.
Except those that refuse to see.
Well I suppose that all we can say is that this action, which you don't know what it is about, but you do know what it is about, and that you know definitely wasn't intended to silence the media, has actually silenced the media.
Something like that?
Sorry?
What is stopping them from saying what it is about?
If people have a problem with the law of the land, maybe talk to your local TD, not the alleged victim in a case yet to come up.
You have it complete arseways.
So you deny using that phrase?
Do you deny creating a thread giving out about the mods/admins and their pro-royalist agenda?
It is relevant here given your argument that no one here is allowed an opinion because the case will go before the courts. Your 'paragon of truth and neutrality is just a ruse to shut people up. Tomorrow you will do a 180 if its suits your agenda.
