Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Gawin]

This still seems rather flimsy though. I mean this still feels like it falls into the "interesting to the public" but not "in the public interest"

If Meghan was writing to government officials, even in a personal capacity, that to me is "in the public interest" but, taking the idea that she authorised her friends to share the letter at face value, a tit for tat with her dad is still a personal matter that ultimately has no bearing on the public condition.

I mean again, good lawyers are experts at winning on the thinnest of margins but I imagine the Sussex lawyers have fairly robust defenses too.

Yes, that's an argument Meghan's lawyer's will likely make - publishing a private letter without permission was not in the "public interest."

 

[Osipi]

Did Meghan share the letter with her friends and then authorize them to talk to People Magazine?

If this can be proven: "The newspaper could defeat her claims for breach of privacy and misuse of private information if it can establish that the duchess authorised earlier references to the letter by her “friends” in a US gossip magazine."

I would imagine that talking to People magazine about the existence of a letter and alluding to its contents is a whole different ball game than actually printing the letter itself. In a way, perhaps even People magazine slipped up as it didn't contact Meghan, herself, for permission to present "hearsay" information from a letter she wrote and expected its contents to remain private.

I doubt too that Meghan had multiple copies of this letter made and sent out copies to all her friends. Proving that Meghan gave friends permission to discuss the letter seems to me to be a very difficult thing to prove.

 

[Gawin]

I would imagine that talking to People magazine about the existence of a letter and alluding to its contents is a whole different ball game than actually printing the letter itself. In a way, perhaps even People magazine slipped up as it didn't contact Meghan, herself, for permission to present "hearsay" information from a letter she wrote and expected its contents to remain private.

I doubt too that Meghan had multiple copies of this letter made and sent out copies to all her friends. Proving that Meghan gave friends permission to discuss the letter seems to me to be a very difficult thing to prove.

Yes, both the Times article and the Mirror article Madame Verseau linked to quote legal experts who think the copyright infringement is the stronger argument. A lawyer in the Times stated "whilst there is an exception for news reporting, the use of a private letter is unlikely to be justified, except where there is a very clear public interest.”

I'm not sure how the Mail would go about proving its case regarding Meghan, her friends, and People Magazine. Would Meghan and her friends be required to testify?

Whether the article is a strong defense or not, it's certainly coming back to haunt Meghan.

 

[Osipi]

I'm not sure how the Mail would go about proving its case regarding Meghan, her friends, and People Magazine. Would Meghan and her friends be required to testify?

One thing that is a big possibility is that the Mail on Sunday will try to get People magazine to give up their sources as to how they got references to Meghan's letter. I don't believe that any of the "friends" have been identified? Correct me if I'm wrong here, please.

In the US, People could claim reporter's privilege which is "Reporter's privilege in the United States (also journalist's privilege, newsman's privilege, or press privilege), is a "reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources."

In the UK, there is a similar ruling in effect. Here's a good read on journalists not revealing their sources in the UK.

https://rightsinfo.org/protecting-journalists-sources-vital-press-freedom-goodwin-v-uk/

 

[Gawin]

Amber Melville-Brown also pointed out that Caroline of Monaco won a case in the European Court of Human Rights which made a distinction between "the activities of Caroline the woman and Princess Caroline the princess, fulfilling her official duties."

[bold facing mine]

She suggests Meghan ask the British court to make a similar distinction between "the duchess and the daughter" when considering a possible public interest justification.

One thing that is a big possibility is that the Mail on Sunday will try to get People magazine to give up their sources as to how they got references to Meghan's letter. I don't believe that any of the "friends" have been identified? Correct me if I'm wrong here, please.

In the US, People could claim reporter's privilege which is "Reporter's privilege in the United States (also journalist's privilege, newsman's privilege, or press privilege), is a "reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources."

In the UK, there is a similar ruling in effect. Here's a good read on journalists not revealing their sources in the UK.

https://rightsinfo.org/protecting-journalists-sources-vital-press-freedom-goodwin-v-uk/

Yes, you're correct. The friends haven't been named.

Christopher Bucktin of the Mirror made this statement: "Pals of the royal spoke to a journalist from People after Meghan had reportedly sanctioned the move. She could now be forced to swear on oath whether she did."

Bucktin is an editor for the Mirror not a lawyer so naturally he uses a worst-case scenario to ramp up the drama (and interest). But I'm curious whether or not Meghan might be required to make such a sworn statement.

 

[Madame Verseau]

If the Mail tries to play the public interest card won't the Mail have to explain publishing the other letters and cards Meghan sent to her dad that were personal? The ones that were used to show her affection for Dad before she became an ingrate when she became royal? I still believe Meghan has the original copy notarized and Dad got the copy. Dad said he sent parts to the Mail. DM may not know the full contents of the letter which may be compared at trial. Of course we will know more on Oct 14 when the specifics come out.

 

[Osipi]

Yes, you're correct. The friends haven't been named.

Christopher Bucktin of the Mirror made this statement: "Pals of the royal spoke to a journalist from People after Meghan had reportedly sanctioned the move. She could now be forced to swear on oath whether she did."

Bucktin is an editor for the Mirror not a lawyer so naturally he uses a worst-case scenario to ramp up the drama (and interest). But I'm curious whether or not Meghan might be required to make such a sworn statement.

Isn't it a distinct possibility that it will only be the lawyers that are present at the actual court hearing? Is it required that Meghan attend? If she is, its very possible that if Meghan is cross examined by the defending attorneys, they could ask her the question about sanctioning her friends to speak publicly about the letter and she'd have to answer under oath.

 

[Gawin]

Isn't it a distinct possibility that it will only be the lawyers that are present at the actual court hearing? Is it required that Meghan attend? If she is, its very possible that if Meghan is cross examined by the defending attorneys, they could ask her the question about sanctioning her friends to speak publicly about the letter and she'd have to answer under oath.

I have no idea what will take place. But you're probably right.

Based on what I've read, I suspect the main thrust of the argument will be whether or not the alleged public interest outweighs the copyright violation.

If the court doesn't agree with the Mail's argument then I assume the issue regarding Meghan, her friends, and People magazine would be irrelevant.

 

[Osipi]

On another note that's rung out in my head is wondering if this will be a court hearing with only a judge or will there be a jury. If I'm not mistaken, juries are selected basically the same way in the UK as the US. Randomly and you're called to serve when its the least convenient.

The jury selected is usually one put together that can be unbiased and impartial to the case being heard. I think it would be quite a task to find 12 people that haven't heard of or had a glimpse into just how much Meghan has gone through. They would have had to be living under a rock in a cave somewhere far, far away and in primitive conditions.

 

[victor1319]

I doubt too that Meghan had multiple copies of this letter made and sent out copies to all her friends. Proving that Meghan gave friends permission to discuss the letter seems to me to be a very difficult thing to prove.

In the press was some talk, that this were not mere friends, but a "sisterhood".
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...told-celebrity-magazine-intimate-stories.html

Perhaps Meghan shared this letter with her very best friends? I don't know, if she has made any new friends in England already. These here seem to be her trustworthy old friends.

Besides: I of course don't know the relationship of Meghan and her father. Maybe she had calculated in, that the letter in question might reach the public eye and wanted to talk back to her friends for advise? Yes, sounds paranoid... but this seems to be, what royals - especially in the UK - have to be.

 

[Osipi]

"Sisterhood" is a very powerful thing with us women. When things go awry in life, who better to rant and rave and bemoan our woes with than a kindred soul? It can also be called being best friends. Its not a secret society plotting conspiracy theories but rather an emotional outlet.

I can imagine conversations between Meghan and her friends starting as "I just don't know what to do about my Dad anymore". Some friends may have just listened. Some friends may have offered the advice to "don't react to him". Some friends may have suggested she write out what she's feeling and mail it to him in a letter and with Meghan's experiences at the time, she had just cause to be wary of *any* step she'd take and seek advice. Some may have even suggested "never complain, never explain" too.

I have to believe that any of Meghan's friends that knew anything about how she was feeling had Meghan's best interest at heart. What we do in life if we didn't have those kind of people in it? ?

 

[ACO]

Why the assumption she shared the letter? That is the stance the papers are going to try and defend them but that doesn't make it the truth and they would have trouble proving that. Honestly all Meghan likely did was tell her very close friend after listening to her father lie for the 100th time about her never contacting him that she wrote him a letter asking him to knock it off. Really as simple as that.

They didn't go for for word unlike the Mail on Sunday who actually printed them. That was their error and what she is suing them for -- copyright.

 

[Gawin]

Why the assumption she shared the letter? That is the stance the papers are going to try and defend them but that doesn't make it the truth and they would have trouble proving that. Honestly all Meghan likely did was tell her very close friend after listening to her father lie for the 100th time about her never contacting him that she wrote him a letter asking him to knock it off. Really as simple as that.

They didn't go for for word unlike the Mail on Sunday who actually printed them. That was their error and what she is suing them for -- copyright.

No one's made that assumption, at least in this forum. We've only brought it up because legal experts have stated it might be a defense used by the Mail.

Whether or not the court agrees with the Mail is another matter.

 

[ACO]

That is my point. I am not saying you said it but it is interesting that is their assumption. Because they know *of* the letter means they had to have read said letter? That is quite the reach. But this will be deal with in court. Each side will throw out whatever they think will go in their favor.

I do find it interesting though that Ben Stokes has join in suing The Sun and are also using Harry's lawyers. As well as the confirmation that others are involved in Harry's suit as well. I wonder if Gareth Thomas is next.

 

[Gawin]

That is my point. I am not saying you said it but it is interesting that is their assumption. Because they know *of* the letter means they had to have read said letter? That is quite the reach. But this will be deal with in court. Each side will throw out whatever they think will go in their favor.

I do find it interesting though that Ben Stokes has join in suing The Sun and are also using Harry's lawyers. As well as the confirmation that others are involved in Harry's suit as well. I wonder if Gareth Thomas is next.

I apologize. I misunderstood your post.

Even if the court agrees to consider the defense the Mail still has to make the argument that it's actions were in the public interest. Two hurdles to jump. I sincerely hope the Mail breaks every single bone in its body in the process.

 

[Zaira]

That is my point. I am not saying you said it but it is interesting that is their assumption. Because they know *of* the letter means they had to have read said letter? That is quite the reach. But this will be deal with in court. Each side will throw out whatever they think will go in their favor.

I do find it interesting though that Ben Stokes has join in suing The Sun and are also using Harry's lawyers. As well as the confirmation that others are involved in Harry's suit as well. I wonder if Gareth Thomas is next.

What they did to Gareth was despicable. I hope he does sue.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

What they did to Gareth was despicable. I hope he does sue.

I was going to inquire about who this was and what happened but then I realized I don't even want to know what horrible thing was done to him.

 

[Mey]

Yes, both the Times article and the Mirror article Madame Verseau linked to quote legal experts who think the copyright infringement is the stronger argument. A lawyer in the Times stated "whilst there is an exception for news reporting, the use of a private letter is unlikely to be justified, except where there is a very clear public interest.”

I'm not sure how the Mail would go about proving its case regarding Meghan, her friends, and People Magazine. Would Meghan and her friends be required to testify?

Whether the article is a strong defense or not, it's certainly coming back to haunt Meghan.

If Meghan gave permission for her friends to quote this letter in the US press she put it in the public arena. It showed the letter from her point of view. It placed her father in the wrong. His only outlet to repair that reputation was by going to the press himself and revealing the letter.

And it also depends on how much of the letter was reproduced. There is a fair use argument for any copyrighted document to be published in part for critique or news.

It would likely require those friends to be revealed and questioned under oath as to how they came to know of the letter, their correspondence with Meghan and their intention as to the article. Meghan would also have to talk.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

If Meghan gave permission for her friends to quote this letter in the US press she put it in the public arena. It showed the letter from her point of view. It placed her father in the wrong. His only outlet to repair that reputation was by going to the press himself and revealing the letter.

And it also depends on how much of the letter was reproduced. There is a fair use argument for any copyrighted document to be published in part for critique or news.

It would likely require those friends to be revealed and questioned under oath as to how they came to know of the letter, their correspondence with Meghan and their intention as to the article. Meghan would also have to talk.

I'd have to read the People Magazine article again to be sure--but I do not believe the friends "quoted" the letter. They basically were responding to Tom's assertion that Meghan had not had any contact with him since he ditched the wedding.
And quite frankly, Tom was absolutely in the wrong and his tales so full of contradictions that it became obvious they were full of lies. The letter that was printed did not show Tom in a better light-if anything it made him look worse.

 

[Gawin]

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-dad-thomas-markle-letter-after-wedding/

“After the wedding she wrote him a letter. She’s like, ‘Dad, I’m so heartbroken. I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimizing me through the media so we can repair our relationship.’ Because every time her team has to come to her and fact-check something [he has said], it’s an arrow to the heart. He writes her a really long letter in return, and he closes it by requesting a photo op with her. And she feels like, ‘That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m telling you I don’t want to communicate through the media, and you’re asking me to communicate through the media. Did you hear anything I said?’ It’s almost like they’re ships passing.”

 

[Mey]

I'd have to read the People Magazine article again to be sure--but I do not believe the friends "quoted" the letter. They basically were responding to Tom's assertion that Meghan had not had any contact with him since he ditched the wedding.
And quite frankly, Tom was absolutely in the wrong and his tales so full of contradictions that it became obvious they were full of lies. The letter that was printed did not show Tom in a better light-if anything it made him look worse.

They paraphrased it:

'After the wedding, she wrote him a letter.

"She's like, 'Dad. I'm so heartbroken. I love you, I have one father. Please stop victimizing me through the media so we can repair our relationship.'"'

How do they know this? How do they know what was in it so specifically? It says Thomas was victimising his daughter and that she was reaching out to make things better. They also describe Thomas' reply, without his consent, and paint that in a negative light

Meghan's letter- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-true-tragedy-Meghan-Markles-rift-father.html

The Mail article with the letter quotes is of course not the full letter. This paints the letter as a series of refutations of his accusations. A plea to him to stop talking to the press with no suggestion of her making a move to patch things up. On the contrary she asks Thomas to let her and Harry to live their lives in peace. The Mail says no suggestion was in the letter. It was a 'shut up' letter.

 

[Rudolph]

If the letter was provided to Meghan’s friends for ‘spin’ purposes the MoS will argue publishing the letter was in order to give a full picture. That is allowed under the law.

 

[Osipi]

I honestly think that, should it happen, People magazine will refuse to name their sources (aka Meghan's friends) unless Meghan *and* all her friends agree to be named. As there are shield laws for this kind of thing in the US and the UK, I do believe that People will protect the anonymity of those friends that talked to them about the letter.

With that in mind, the MoS should also appreciate this happening as its a shield law that they, themselves have recourse to use should the need arise.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

If the letter was provided to Meghan’s friends for ‘spin’ purposes the MoS will argue publishing the letter was in order to give a full picture. That is allowed under the law.

They didn't publish the whole letter, so how can they argue publishing the letter gave the full picture? They published only parts of the letter, so that excuse imho makes no sense.

 

[Rudolph]

They didn't publish the whole letter, so how can they argue publishing the letter gave the full picture? They published only parts of the letter, so that excuse imho makes no sense.

I’m not saying it will be a successful defence but that’s probably an area where they’ll go.

Edit: It may also fall under a rebuttal defence. Meghan had her people talk to People Magazine so the MoS published what it believes pushes back against it.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

A lawsuit is not going to compel People magazine to name their sources. I am not sure where people got this idea or why it keeps coming up. This is not correct. If there was a grain of truth to this, journalism as we know it today would not exist.

That said, it is my recollection that for those who take an interest in Meghan's group of friends, it was fairly easily to identify who the sources must have been. I am not one of those individuals, but I recall talk at the time that there were only so many people who fit the descriptions given by the magazine, to the extent that the list of could be narrowed to 10 or so people, if not fewer.

 

[Rudolph]

Well that’s exactly it. People Magazine doesn’t have to name a source as long as what it published points to Meghan’s letter.

The MoS will argue if Meghan wanted the letter to remain private how did interpretations of it finds its way into an American glossy magazine.

The MoS will argue as a news outlet it has the right to follow up and present a clearer picture of the story.

 

[Gawin]

Well that’s exactly it. People Magazine doesn’t have to name a source as long as what it published points to Meghan’s letter.

The MoS will argue if Meghan wanted the letter to remain private how did interpretations of it finds its way into an American glossy magazine.

The MoS will argue as a news outlet it has the right to follow up and present a clearer picture of the story.

.

Yes - on the one hand, Meghan's lawyers could argue that publishing the letter wasn't a matter of public interest. But on the other hand, the Mail might be able to argue the letter became a matter of public interest once Meghan's friends discussed its contents in People Magazine.

 

[Madame Verseau]

If MoS tries to argue printing the letter provides a clearer picture then the complete letter should have been printed. The judge may rule he or she needs to have the complete letter entered into evidence. If Meghan presents the complete letter showing her reaching out and Dad in a worse light there goes MoS' case.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I think there is a misunderstanding of what "in the public interest" means in this context. It does not mean "interesting to the public" or "interests the public." It is something closer to "for the public good." Think of exposing a confidential letter because it reveals a government secret that if printed will save lives, or will stop a double agent from being elected to public office.

I have no idea what defense strategies are available to the Mail, and some may or may not be that the letter was interesting to the public, that the People magazine interview somehow made it fair game, ideas around fair use, etc. However, there is a "in the public interest" defense that exists. It has nothing to do with cases like Meghan's letter, though.