Mary Lou MacDonald suing RTE

Why are so many people on this thread so concerned about discussing a topic? Is it not a given that every thread on boards is a discussion and not legal opinion or medical advice (which is rightly banned), why do so many feel the need to keep bringing this up on a thread about SF silencing discussion.

You have to admit that is weird.

Nobody has found in favor of RTE, however given all the evidence is public, it does seem a bit of a stretch to say any defamation occurred, so you can understand why people believe this is a SLAPPS attempt.

Any other strawmen to build while we're at it?

I'm pointing out that if RTE do have a case to answer, there is faster/cheaper ways to get to the desired outcome.

MLMD pursuing the longest most costly drawn out way of doing it makes it highly likely that even if there is some form of defamation in there (that I don't believe there is, but the legal system can worry about that) that it is an attempt at silencing the media on this story.

Have complaints been made before to the BAI and gotten nowhere?

Where is this rule by the way that you have to go to the BAI? And why could that not also be seen as 'trying to shut down the media/chat shows or whatever you are having yourself? I'd be pretty sure you would be making that case whichever way she chose to go.

You were going to show this rule that you have to follow certain steps. You have zero idea what her reasoning/advice was yet you attack.

If she went to the BAI, you guys would be claiming the same thing, I have zero doubt about that.

Did it ever occur to you that she may be trying to stop people using the conflict/war and victims to deflect from current issues? I haven't as yet seen her baulk at addressing issues from that conflict/war in the proper context.

If that is what the case is about then I would fully support her or anyone else. But again, I am guessing/supposing.

Unless of course you think using victims and the conflict/war to deflect is a valid thing. I would see it as a form of 'reverse SLAPPS' if you get my drift.

But that is exactly why people object to people using a SLAPPS, it's a way of people trying to keep the media narrative on stories they want and suppressing stories that put them in a bad light.

It's incredulous that you think it's a good thing.

But look, now we have covered that for SF supporters:

• The leader of the party isn't responsible for the actions of current serving members and can't eject them from the party.
• That a SLAPPS is OK if people don't talk about the bad things in case they deflect from things they want to talk about (aka Francie is OK with Dennis OBrien using them).
• That followers of a party aren't allowed to speculate (after all we're 30 pages in and only just got to admitting that Mairia Cahill is involved and that a SLAPPS is now ok in some circumstance) on anything until after a court case is finished (so now more posting on the Leo thread I guess?).

That's some hole you've dug for yourself. I'm sure others won't hold you to those standards now ;)

The evidence is already in the public domain, we can make claims all we want as all the details are public.

Name the FG person who has engaged in this process? Bailey and Farrell weren't engaging in SLAPPS cases and everyone ridiculed them (before the court cases went ahead), it seems to only be SF members that can't be ridiculed ahead of the case.

Spectacularly missing the point to paint a narrative, is what you are doing here.

Again, people using a war/conflict or victims out of context and in order to deflect from current issues (the party piece of so many power swap TDs and leaders now it isn't possible to name them all) is wholly wrong and she is right to stop them doing that. (If that is what the case is about)

There is NO issue talking about those things in the proper context.

It isn't that hard to grasp, do try.

This thread has completely exposed those posters who will defend their politician to the end in the face of all evidence.

I have long at a problem with people using selective victims and events solely for political point scoring. It has long poisoned politics here. If this is someone finally taking someone to task for doing that, I support it. I make zero apologies for that.

We already know your penchant for convicting on foot of an allegation.

Now you are convicting on foot of no evidence at all.

The thread says more about you and others than anything else.