The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #501  
Old 10-12-2019, 12:35 PM
Mey Mey is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: BIRKENHEAD, United Kingdom
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
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:

Quote:
'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/art...ft-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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 10-12-2019, 01:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 10-12-2019, 01:21 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,169
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.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 10-12-2019, 01:35 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
If the letter was provided to Meghanís friends for Ďspiní 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.
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 10-12-2019, 01:38 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 10-12-2019, 02:34 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 469
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.
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 10-12-2019, 03:03 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910


Well thatís exactly it. People Magazine doesnít have to name a source as long as what it published points to Meghanís 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.
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 10-12-2019, 03:38 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post


Well thatís exactly it. People Magazine doesnít have to name a source as long as what it published points to Meghanís 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.
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 10-12-2019, 03:47 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
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.
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 10-12-2019, 04:24 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 469
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.
Reply With Quote
  #511  
Old 10-12-2019, 04:30 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
The MoS is going to present a pretty simple case imo.

One way or another, Meghan provided contents of a personal letter to be shared with an American glossy magazine thatís been very friendly to her in the past.

Ok but the MoS will argue that she only shared contents of the letter to paint herself as a victim.

The MoS will argue thereís always two sides to every story and published a rebuttal to People Magazine.
Reply With Quote
  #512  
Old 10-12-2019, 04:35 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
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.
Thank you for the clarification.
Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 10-12-2019, 04:41 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The MoS is going to present a pretty simple case imo.

One way or another, Meghan provided contents of a personal letter to be shared with an American glossy magazine thatís been very friendly to her in the past.

Ok but the MoS will argue that she only shared contents of the letter to paint herself as a victim.

The MoS will argue thereís always two sides to every story and published a rebuttal to People Magazine.
She obviously shared the contents with her friends. Whether or not she wanted it shared with People is a question that might come up in court.
Reply With Quote
  #514  
Old 10-12-2019, 04:41 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
Meghan is a public figure and in that respect the courts may decide sheís doesnít have a right to pick and choose whatís positive press.

If Meghan wants to disclose the contents of a private letter to certain media outlets without scrutiny from other outlets, I think the law will find in favour of the press.
Reply With Quote
  #515  
Old 10-12-2019, 04:43 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
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.
Thank you for posting this and clarifying this.
Reply With Quote
  #516  
Old 10-12-2019, 04:46 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Meghan is a public figure and in that respect the courts may decide sheís doesnít have a right to pick and choose whatís positive press.

If Meghan wants to disclose the contents of a private letter to certain media outlets without scrutiny from other outlets, I think the law will find in favour of the press.
The court case isn't about positive press or scrutiny over the letter. It's publishing it without the consent of the copyright holder of the letter, and the copyright belongs to Meghan.
Reply With Quote
  #517  
Old 10-12-2019, 04:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Meghan is a public figure and in that respect the courts may decide sheís doesnít have a right to pick and choose whatís positive press.

If Meghan wants to disclose the contents of a private letter to certain media outlets without scrutiny from other outlets, I think the law will find in favour of the press.
That's a very good point but at the present we only know her friends shared the letter with the press. Not Meghan herself. That might be a question brought up in court. Did Meghan authorise her friends to share the letter with People? If yes, that might change things, as you correctly point out.
Reply With Quote
  #518  
Old 10-12-2019, 04:48 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze View Post
The court case isn't about positive press or scrutiny over the letter. It's publishing it without the consent of the copyright holder of the letter, and the copyright belongs to Meghan.
That the copyright belongs to Meghan in this particular case will be open to interpretation from a judge.

Itís not like this letter fell from heaven. It was disclosed to present people in a certain light.
Reply With Quote
  #519  
Old 10-12-2019, 05:04 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
That the copyright belongs to Meghan in this particular case will be open to interpretation from a judge.

Itís not like this letter fell from heaven. It was disclosed to present people in a certain light.
In what light was it disclosed? Mr Markle's reputation and character were in no way damaged by the few sentences the letter was mentioned in the People article. The wording of Meghan's private letter to her father serves no public interest.
Reply With Quote
  #520  
Old 10-12-2019, 06:26 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze View Post
In what light was it disclosed? Mr Markle's reputation and character were in no way damaged by the few sentences the letter was mentioned in the People article. The wording of Meghan's private letter to her father serves no public interest.
I agree, it is just a pity its existence was revealed in People magazine by friends of Meghan.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abdication america anastasia anastasia once upon a time archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography bridal gown britain british british royal family china chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy doge of venice doll dubai duke of sussex facts family life fashion and style george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery king edward vii king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mary: crown princess of denmark meghan markle nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince constantijn prince dimitri princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal ancestry royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family solomon j solomon speech suthida taiwan tradition uae customs united states of america wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:29 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×