Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[LadyGlendower]

One man's bashing is another man's bread and butter--the way they make their living.

The established case law protects from and punishes damaging slander and libel but does not restrict criticism, commentary, parody, and satire no matter how hurtful it may be to the feelings of the target. Provable slander and libel rises to the level of seriously damaging a person's reputation and livelihood.

Of course this case is about clear copyright infringement but I see this thread heading towards passionate arguments about the non-legal just like in the press. And our free speech protects such discourse so I'm good with that but will leave you guys to it until there is some legal news.

[Mey]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The Duke and Duchess did not start juridical procedures about the phone hacking. They joined an already long existing procedure, started by numerous other victims of phone hacking. Compare it with former Prime Minister and Tory Grandee Sir John Major joining the procedure of Ms Gina Miller against the lenghty procreation of Parliament. And MP's joining the procedure of Joanna Cherry QC MP against the same procreation.

That does not change the motivation for doing so. He could have easily let others do the prosecution and shielded himself and his family from the fallout but he has not.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by BaiSoSo

I'm all for a free press as long as there is some integrity that goes along with it. Satire/criticism is one thing but bullying, harassment and lies written as news and truth is another thing all together. People (public figures or not) shouldn't be forced to interact with those they don't want and shouldn't have to fear that they are going to publicly bashed on a regular basis.

Harassment is a criminal offence in the UK. If the press is found guilty they will be punished according to the law. Some forms of bullying are also criminal offences. Writing lies as truth I'm not so sure about. Happy to be educated. There are libel laws of course.

As to "being bashed", if that means being ridiculed/ being disproved of then I don't see what can be done about that.

I get what you're saying but I just don't see how you square this particular circle.

[Dalriada]

I'm sorry but I'm not always impressed with the British public. After all, the tabloids wouldn't exist without their clicks & support.[/QUOTE]


Even British taxpayers aren’t impressed with the British Public’s opinion.

[wyevale]

Harry is resorting to the Courts

As [and I have said so] is his perfect right.. It is for the courts to maintain the law, but were he to agitate to change, or further it, I believe he would be 'overstepping the mark', and be seen to be so doing.
Persons of extraordinary privilege are no longer free [as they once were] to do that sort of thing. It would be a mistake, and l pray he can recognise that.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Mey

That does not change the motivation for doing so. He could have easily let others do the prosecution and shielded himself and his family from the fallout but he has not.

Of course, he doubles the intrinsic weight with joining the legal action. But what would you do when rats from the tabloids bugged your telephone and those of your loved ones? That you wonder how come paperazzi awaiting you in places you only disclosed in private, making you suspicious about the loyalty of people around you, while it just were criminals recording all and everything of your private conversations. The impact must have been immense. I have 100% understanding for this step.

[Gawin]

"Prince Harry’s tabloid lawsuit 'will likely take a year to get to court"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...o-get-to-court


EDITED to highlight the following quote from Hugh Tomlinson QC, chairman of Hacked Off:

“Prince Harry’s case reminds us of the scale of wrongdoing by certain newspapers which went on over many years,” Tomlinson said. “Hacked Off has long campaigned for part two of the Leveson inquiry to find out what actually happened. This reminds us of the need for that.

“It’s interesting that the action brought by the Duchess of Sussex reminds us that the press misconduct, which newspapers have said is a thing of the past, is still continuing. It emphasises the urgent need for an inquiry.”

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by Durham

Harassment is a criminal offence in the UK. If the press is found guilty they will be punished according to the law. Some forms of bullying are also criminal offences. Writing lies as truth I'm not so sure about. Happy to be educated. There are libel laws of course.

As to "being bashed", if that means being ridiculed/ being disproved of then I don't see what can be done about that.

I get what you're saying but I just don't see how you square this particular circle.

The bashing I'm referring to is when it crosses the line into harassment/bullying, example would be a talk show host complaining on air that a public figure 'ghosted' them...the first couple of times it is mentioned fine but multiple times (4-5 or more) eventually crosses the line into something more sinister. How dare you not speak to me...I'm going to try and publicly shame you into submission. Some royal reporters have said similar things....there will be consequences for not giving us what we want...personal access to you. This is what happens when the 'free press' is out of control and integrity/ethics need to be brought front and center.

As for the laws already in place nothing will happen, no one will be held accountable if the victims don't first bring the complaints forward... which is what Harry and Meghan are doing.

[Zaira]

Back to the lawsuit, will the complaint and response be publicly available? I know sometimes they can be under seal for high profile individuals but don't recall the procedure in the UK.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Zaira

Back to the lawsuit, will the complaint and response be publicly available? I know sometimes they can be under seal for high profile individuals but don't recall the procedure in the UK.

I’m wondering the same thing.

[Gawin]

After reading a quote in support of the Sussex lawsuits from Hugh Tomlinson of Hacked Off (see the Guardian article I linked to above) I decided to check out Hacked Off's website.

I found three more (brief) articles supporting Harry and Meghan's lawsuits:

https://hackinginquiry.org/

The reader comments are interesting as well. For example: "We do not allow any copy of the Daily Mail to cross the threshold of our home. Interesting that it is still referred to as a ‘News Paper’. All attempts at intimidation or bullying should be fought by us all. An independent press watchdog is essential to achieving justice for those who suffer unwarranted abuse."

EDITED TO ADD:

See also Hacked Off's comments on the Leveson report's recommendation that "the press be regulated by a completely independent system; with punitive powers, arbitration and prominent corrections & apologies."

https://hackinginquiry.org/about/

I wasn't aware of this and I wonder if Harry would see it as a solution to the "manipulative and deceitful press - the rot in Britain's civic life" he supposedly wants to take on.

[tommy100]

Oh here we go again, tbh I have never seen anything racial in the mainstream media's criticism of Meghan. If anything when there have been undertones of that it has been called out, quite rightly.

Zaira commented that "Meghan has been attacked repeatedly, often times for things other royals are lauded for." and I have to say on the face of it I agree but I think that is more about the way she and Harry have gone about some things that in theory are things royals should do. I hate to say it but I do think part of the issue is that the difference between British and American ways of doing things. I know we always think we are so similar, share a common language etc but really we have very different ways of doing things and with different intent and attitudes behind them. None of this is to say the British way is better or the American way is wrong, nor is to say every one in the UK thinks this way or acts this way but in general while people think we are so similar we are not and that is why sometimes Meghan is criticised for doing the right things but in the wrong way if that makes sense. TBH to a degree Harry is more to blame as he has seemed to just allow Meghan to do things the way she wants, which is fine, but he hasn't appeared to explain why things have been done the way they have by the RF for so long and the way British people see things. The problem lies somewhere in the fact that the BRF has mastered the art of doing good without appearing to want to do good - the way the Queen, Camilla, Kate appear in the crowd almost as if they've just stopped by on their way out, not appearing to expect anyone to be there to meet them, waving at them etc. The way the Queen Mother visited the damage of the Blitz almost as if she'd popped round to her friends house for a cup of tea and oh look its been damaged. Of course in reality they all know they are the star attraction, they know they need to put on a bit of show (I mean as if a women in the East End of London would pop round to her friends in her furs and diamonds) but the point is its made to appear as if nothing is expected. I guess its why people always thing the British talk about the weather as if it rains all the time, we have a hard time selling ourselves and making ourselves look good and stand out in a way that comes more natural to Americans. Hence why it feels a little uncomfortable to us when a member of the RF is so open about wanting to change the world., its not a bad thing but its not an attitude that comes naturally to Brits to be so confident and think so big. Its not a flaw in Meghan at all, like any culture difference it can be hard to understand at times.

Of course some of the media coverage has been uncomfortable, and indeed sometimes downright unpleasant but we must look at the media as a whole not just those with the loudest voices. Yes Piers Morgan has a vendetta against Meghan and at times it appears childish but is it any worse than all the US late show hosts who openly mock and dislike Trump? (I'm not a Trump fan in anyway btw) People are entitled to opinions, that is the world we live in and the way we know we don't all become robots who think the same way. But likewise those opinions mustn't cross a line, I'm not actually a fan of Morgan as he is too opinionated IMO but I can't say he is doing anything illegal in expressing it, I just ignore him. But to come down on all the media seems extreme, I mean how many reporters, photographers are out there like Arthur Edwards, Nicholas Whitchell, Chris Ship etc who aren't breaking laws, being bitchy, finding every excuse to blame everything on Meghan and yet now feel tarred with the same brush as those few who have done the very worst. That simply isn't conducive to a fruitful working relationship.

The vast majority of the mainstream media seem to be treating Meghan and Harry in much the same way as they treat any new royal couple. Sadly there has perhaps been more to talk and gossip about but that is largely due to the nature of Meghan's relationship with her family and her celebrity friends. Again she is 1000% entitled to have those relationships in those ways but likewise it is not illegal for the media to talk about them.

I do not blame Meghan and Harry for this but at times they do seem not to have helped, announcing you are suing a British newspaper on the last day of an official taxpayer funded tour, the timing for no apparent legal reason, then people calling the media out for not reporting on their visits on that last day is just ridiculous. It was clear the media would report on the legal action, and it appeared almost as if they did it to show that the media wouldn't report on the work and issues of the last day to show how unfair they think the media are. It just seems a bit counter productive.

The reality is, they aren't going to get the media to change their coverage by taking legal action about them and releasing, at times quite personal, statements condemning all of the media. That is just raising tensions and feelings of unhappiness on both sides and that was what we saw when Harry snapped in a deeply unprofessional way at a Sky News reporter who was actually trying to ask about his visit that day (which was what lots of people said the media weren't doing because they were more interested in the court drama). That incident shows to me that at present this relationship between Harry, Meghan and the media is stopping them from doing their duties representing the Queen and UK overseas and in public.

I can understand how hard it must be to get criticised all the time in public and feel the media are against you. I mean it has never happened to me but we have all had times feeling people are talking about it and gossiping and telling untruths so times that by 1000 and then some.

As it stands I actually agree with the two legal actions they have taken - the copyright issue and the phone tapping as both are likely criminal acts (though I would say the copyright one is somewhat a bit irrelevant as Meghan allowed her friends to talk about it so that was always likely to lead to the media trying to get it and its a rather technical thing to sue over) but I agree with them taking action where they feel the law has been broken. Its the sentiment behind it that appears to attack all media and make it more personal.

I just wish rather than the over emotional statements they release why not do as Diana did and arrange one to ones with the vast majority of the royal reporters who are doing a pretty fair job. Rather than always using the stick why not use the carrot, reward those who are playing as much as possible by the rules and invite them for tea at Frogmore, let them see Archie in private, let them get exclusives rather than just the friends you already have in the media (Tom Bradby and Gayle King).

I guess its also worth H&M remembering the saying todays news is tomorrows chip papers. All the polls out by the likes of Yougov etc show Harry and Meghan having pretty consistent approval ratings so these stories are not having a huge impact on the people of the UK's opinions, like the majority of us here they read them, take about 1% as truth and the rest as fiction and forget about them. Showing it gets to you gives some more weight behind the media doing it.

I hope H&M take a wider range of advice going forward and maybe change tack a little to seem less confrontational and recognise that they do need the media to go about their duties, as well of course as the media needing them but as they say- there's plenty more fish in the sea.

Anyway sorry for such a long post, especially as it will likely be deleted as we are all going way off topic but sometimes you have to say what you see and hope people understand.

[MARG]

If the case is settled out of court a non-disclosure clause pretty standard. However, I don't think that is going to happen.

I find it interesting that this class action is being referred to as 'Prince Harry's Court Action' and he is being slammed for his "outrageous" sense of privilege. Needless to say that is not accurate, but they don't seem to care either on camera

[Zaira]

Originally Posted by MARG

If the case is settled out of court a non-disclosure clause pretty standard. However, I don't think that is going to happen.

I find it interesting that this class action is being referred to as 'Prince Harry's Court Action' and he is being slammed for his "outrageous" sense of privilege. Needless to say that is not accurate, but they don't seem to care either on camera

The group claim part of the story, despite being significant, doesn't fit with the breathless and hysterical headlines about Harry going rogue or silencing the free press.

It would, after all, expose the sheer depth of some of the tabloid media's alleged wrongdoing.

[Zonk]

So let's talk about this lawsuit.

The way I understand, Meghan is suing because she holds the copyright to the letter (and not her father), and the premise of the lawsuit is that 1) they never asked her permission to publish the letter and that 2) parts of the letter were either omitted and/or deleted to make her look bad. Is that right?

And from what I gather the Daily Mail is saying that privilege went out the window cause her friends spoke about it (although it looks like they did in a general and not specific sense) and that the public has a right to know about the letter (i.e. the public's right to know).

Now in her father's most recent interview, he admitted that removed portions of the letter....so the question is...did the Daily Mail know that portions were removed or did they make the suggestion to remove certain parts of the letter. Further more, how are they going to play that the public has a right to know about Meghan's relationship with her father. Haven't the courts ruled that everyone deserves a modicum of privacy? I would assume that familial relationships fall into that thought process.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Ista]

I think the friends specifically referencing the letter and paraphrasing what was in it muddies the waters a bit, but I'm not sure that would in any way reduce Meghan's right to privacy. It will be interesting to see what the court decides, but I am finding it a bit surprising that the DM didn't just go ahead and settle, which makes me wonder a)what Meghan's demands were and what the DM was willing to offer, and b) whether the DM's lawyers think there's a good chance that they might win the case. It looks as though it will be a while before we find out.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

I don't think the Markles are going to be interviewed soon especially Dad by DM. If Dad is called an interview by DM could be seen as witness tampering I think since it is the respondent in Meghan's case. The press is circling the wagons and a Markle interview could be use as ammunition for the lawyers. You saw what happened when Dad released the letter and did the interview. Instead of exonerating him the letter reveal proves Dad lied about no contact from Meghan. Interviews about the case could be used as evidence and could open the paper up to future litigation since the Markles' contribution to dragging Meghan's character is well documented for three years.

And right on schedule dad used this to start talking again; who didn't see that coming.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Now in her father's most recent interview, he admitted that removed portions of the letter....so the question is...did the Daily Mail know that portions were removed or did they make the suggestion to remove certain parts of the letter. Further more, how are they going to play that the public has a right to know about Meghan's relationship with her father. Haven't the courts ruled that everyone deserves a modicum of privacy? I would assume that familial relationships fall into that thought process.

When it comes to the actual, physical letter that Mr. Markle had in his possession, it would be kind of hard to physically "edit" parts of a handwritten letter and pass it on as the genuine thing. The MoS also not only printed the edited version of the letter that they had but they also included photographs of the physical letter as "proof" it was written by Meghan. If we remember back to that time, there were quite a few letters from Meghan's paternal family that were photographed and the contents printed. Perhaps not all by the MoS but as Meghan is the claimant in this particular case against the MoS, her letter is the sole focus.

I don't believe that the MoS will be able to claim that they received an "edited" form of Meghan's letter and had no knowledge that Mr. Markle "edited" it. Mr. Markle may have had some influence in leaving out parts of the letter that were actually printed but the fact still shows that it was the MoS that did the editing and the omissions. Mr. Markle's statement saying parts were left out (for whatever reason) tells the truth that the letter was edited to "suit a purpose" in informing the public.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Zaira

The group claim part of the story, despite being significant, doesn't fit with the breathless and hysterical headlines about Harry going rogue or silencing the free press.

It would, after all, expose the sheer depth of some of the tabloid media's alleged wrongdoing.

I'm just surprised that no one has thought that in all this group action thing about illegally getting a hold of private voice mails and conversations, it hasn't been realized that some very *big* scandals of the past have happened in exactly this manner and published. Anyone remember "Squidgygate" or "Tampongate"? The transcripts of those conversations that were obtained without permission are still available online if you look for them.

Harry is just one in a long line of people that have been affected by these kind of things. He's not going rogue. He's joining the ranks of a well formed militia to combat this sort of thing.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Ista

I think the friends specifically referencing the letter and paraphrasing what was in it muddies the waters a bit, but I'm not sure that would in any way reduce Meghan's right to privacy. It will be interesting to see what the court decides, but I am finding it a bit surprising that the DM didn't just go ahead and settle, which makes me wonder a)what Meghan's demands were and what the DM was willing to offer, and b) whether the DM's lawyers think there's a good chance that they might win the case. It looks as though it will be a while before we find out.

It is possible the Duchess does not want to settle because then "We did do no wrong" remains hanging above the case.