Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Ista]

Originally Posted by alvinking

Au contaire, pretty easy actually

Examples
Not sure if it was in DM or the Mail on Sunday but

Cost of outfits for 2019, in excess of £1 million
The Sussexes can produce the real cost of her outfit and prove the lie
The DM or MOS would have to prove that what they say was true. What are the sources of this affirmation

She send texts at 5:30am to her staff
The Staff can be called under oath to deny having receive any text at said hour
The DM or MOS would have to prove that what they printed was true; What are the sources

She made Princess Charlotte cry
Th people present at the fitting can be called and testify under oath that it never happened
The DM and the MOS would have to prove that what they printed was true. What are the sources

These are just 3 examples off the top of my head

If the can demonstrate a continuous pattern of printed lies overtime, there is the agenda

What a horrifying idea. This would just encourage the DM's lawyers to go digging around, and there is a possibility that at least some of the negative stories are actually true, and testimony would corroborate them. No, I agree with tommy100 and Hallo girl that this would open can of worms that it would never, ever, be possible to close up again, and that the Sussexes are wisest to stick to concentrating their efforts on very obvious and hopefully winnable lawsuits.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Meghan is a public figure and in that respect the courts may decide she’s doesn’t have a right to pick and choose what’s 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 not even what is being put up for debate. It's already been addressed that Meghan gave no one access to the letter.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Ista

What a horrifying idea. This would just encourage the DM's lawyers to go digging around, and there is a possibility that at least some of the negative stories are actually true, and testimony would corroborate them. No, I agree with tommy100 and Hallo girl that this would open can of worms that it would never, ever, be possible to close up again, and that the Sussexes are wisest to stick to concentrating their efforts on very obvious and hopefully winnable lawsuits.

That is my view, keeping to the copyright angle. A previous poster highlighted how easy trying to dispute the ' lies ' line could backfire.

[texankitcat]

I understand thatHarry and Meghan’s frustration with the media but disagree with the manner and timing of the lawsuit announcement during an official tour representing the UK. The issue that isn’ t being addressed is that her father and half siblings have been at the center of this media frenzy since they got engaged, and have had zero accountability. Holding the media legally accountable but not the person(s) responsible for sharing such personal information seems to be counter productive.

As long as the Markle’s are sharing personal information, the media will continue to cover it. Are they going to sue every media outlet that prints what the the Markle clan puts out?

I just don’t see this as a good move on their part.

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by texankitcat

I understand the Harry and Meghan’s frustration with the media but disagree with the manner and timing of the lawsuit announcement during an official tour representing the UK. The issue that isn’ t being addressed is that her father and half siblings have been at the center of this media frenzy since they got engaged, and have had zero accountability. Holding the media legally accountable but not the person(s) responsible for sharing such personal information seems to be counter productive.

As long as the Markle’s are sharing personal information, the media will continue to cover it. Are they going to sue every media outlet that prints what the the Markle clan puts out?

I just don’t see this as a good love on their part.

Nope just the ones that break the law in the process.

[DeeT]

The timing of the lawsuits is fine, whatever the Sussexes and their lawyers think is appropriate is all that matters. Harry and Meghan had a terrific tour, if some of the UK media can’t handle it, it shows how unprofessional the media continues to be. The SA media did an excellent job of covering the tour, information about the lawsuits, didn’t stop them from doing their job.

There’s a long history of unprofessionalism and corruption in certain segments of the media. With no proper press regulator things will continue to be horrid for all those who the low standard press decide to bully without warrant. The media should be held accountable for their actions, they choose what to write & publish. Last year, the Sussexes also had a successful Oceania Tour, they weren’t even back in the UK when media started printing false stories, attacking the pregnant Duchess for no reason. It was malicious & disgusting! I’m so grateful that the Sussexes are bravely trying to take a stand against press abuse. Many may say they’re against bullying, but happily stand back and do nothing; in some cases give permission and allow it to continue.

I wish the Sussexes every success. They may pave the way for improved media standards that may benefit others too; my family is sincerely grateful.

[MaiaMia_53]

Omid Scobie has started a new podcast, apparently sponsored by ABC (no longer co-hosted with Emily Andrews). ABC's Maggie Rulli appears to be on board, with a series of guests planned. There are two episodes so far, and the last portion of the second episode has Omid discussing the Sussexes' legal action announced at the tail end of the SA tour. In addition, Scobie has interesting, informative conversation with a reporter from ByLine Investigations (an online publication), which recently reported on Harry's action against the phone hacking:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id1354474880

[Humbugged]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Meghan is a public figure and in that respect the courts may decide she’s doesn’t have a right to pick and choose what’s 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.

Article 8 gives everybody the Right to Privacy - that includes the rich and famous . And she has the same right of copyright retention as the the rest of us in the UK .And also has the right no to have her phone calls recorded by a third party as her father admitted that his Daily Mail groomer (who had moved in next door to him ) tried to do and that's an attempted breach of the laws on Data Protection


And would you care to share where Meghan disclosed contents of the letter .And I must have missed where even if she did disclose it's contents (which as the copyright holder she would be entitled to do anyway ) that her or anybody else would then then be under obligation to grant permission for somebody to monetize their private communications.


So 3 laws pertinent to law in the UK (1 of which is a European wide right ) are broken ,can you say why you think a court would rule against them ?

[Humbugged]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

Omid Scobie has started a new podcast, apparently sponsored by ABC (no longer co-hosted with Emily Andrews). ABC's Maggie Rulli appears to be on board, with a series of guests planned. There are two episodes so far, and the last portion of the second episode has Omid discussing the Sussexes' legal action announced at the tail end of the SA tour. In addition, Scobie has interesting, informative conversation with a reporter from ByLine Investigations (an online publication), which recently reported on Harry's action against the phone hacking:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id1354474880

The best way to describe the part of the story involving Chelsy to those in North America would be that papers employed so called 'blaggers' to con medical professionals into breaching our version of HIPAA and giving the papers info on her (and apparently a load of other people )treatment in hospital .And just to point out that this is still going on as this is apparently how they found out about Gareth Thomas

Originally Posted by DeeT

The timing of the lawsuits is fine, whatever the Sussexes and their lawyers think is appropriate is all that matters. Harry and Meghan had a terrific tour, if some of the UK media can’t handle it, it shows how unprofessional the media continues to be. The SA media did an excellent job of covering the tour, information about the lawsuits, didn’t stop them from doing their job.

There’s a long history of unprofessionalism and corruption in certain segments of the media. With no proper press regulator things will continue to be horrid for all those who the low standard press decide to bully without warrant. The media should be held accountable for their actions, they choose what to write & publish. Last year, the Sussexes also had a successful Oceania Tour, they weren’t even back in the UK when media started printing false stories, attacking the pregnant Duchess for no reason. It was malicious & disgusting! I’m so grateful that the Sussexes are bravely trying to take a stand against press abuse. Many may say they’re against bullying, but happily stand back and do nothing; in some cases give permission and allow it to continue.

I wish the Sussexes every success. They may pave the way for improved media standards that may benefit others too; my family is sincerely grateful.

The thing is that their own 'professional body' thinks that people being thrown to the tabloids is a price worth paying

Angela Phillips, professor of journalism at Goldsmiths University, London, who gave evidence at the Leveson inquiry into media ethics, said stories like those of Stokes and Thomas were a question of ethics rather than press freedom or the law.
She told BBC Radio 5 Live: "We've now got ourselves into a situation in this country where our tabloid press, partly because of the internet and social media and the way of which stories now travel is that anything that brings in money is justifiable.
"They seem to have lost any sense of whether this story is going to do so much harm to the people whose background you're revealing that you shouldn't touch it with a barge pole."
However, speaking after the Stokes story broke, Ian Murray, executive director of the Society of Editors, said care had to be taken over the principle of a free press.
"I'm not defending the Sun - what I am defending is the principle and saying let's be very careful about what we do."
He continued: "We have a free press. It's such a jewel in the crown of any free society. And there are always the sharks circling, the politicians, the rich, the powerful who would like to see that free press closed down."

[O-H Anglophile]

And yet the same quote also gives the alternate view by a professor of journalism--that some parts of the press sink to scummy levels simply to get a story out first, whether it is true or ethical.

"Angela Phillips, professor of journalism at Goldsmiths University, London, who gave evidence at the Leveson inquiry into media ethics, said stories like those of Stokes and Thomas were a question of ethics rather than press freedom or the law.
She told BBC Radio 5 Live: "We've now got ourselves into a situation in this country where our tabloid press, partly because of the internet and social media and the way of which stories now travel is that anything that brings in money is justifiable.
"They seem to have lost any sense of whether this story is going to do so much harm to the people whose background you're revealing that you shouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
However, speaking after the Stokes story broke, Ian Murray, executive director of the Society of Editors, said care had to be taken over the principle of a free press."
"I'm not defending the Sun - what I am defending is the principle and saying let's be very careful about what we do."
He continued: "We have a free press. It's such a jewel in the crown of any free society. And there are always the sharks circling, the politicians, the rich, the powerful who would like to see that free press closed down."

[MaiaMia_53]

"And there are always the sharks circling, the politicians, the rich, the powerful who would like to see that free press closed down."

That's not what the Sussexes are interested in doing. They understand and value good journalism and decent, professional reporters. Harry is in fact close to a handful of journalists (Tom Bradby of ITV being one of them). Omid Scobie and Chris Ship are also apparently seen as being respectable reporters, by the Sussexes. Rhiannon Mills is also respected, despite Harry being upset by the question she yelled out on that last day in SA.

The fact that so much of journalism today has sunk to the lowest levels of trivial scum, pandering, malicious gossip and untruths is a sad fact that's felt around the world.

I applaud what the Sussexes are trying to do to turn the tide against irresponsible reporting. That some people are trying to muddy the waters in characterizing the Sussexes legal actions is because such people are guilty and feeling the heat. The media in Britain, led by the worst dregs of tabloid journalism, crossed the line so far so long ago, they probably can't tell the difference between what constitutes good journalism vs intrusive, harmful gossip.

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

"And there are always the sharks circling, the politicians, the rich, the powerful who would like to see that free press closed down."

That's not what the Sussexes are interested in doing. They understand and value good journalism and decent, professional reporters. Harry is in fact close to a handful of journalists.

Is not this part of the press of real value, which is "not close" to the Royals?

I mean, sure, the free press is mostly an illusion. But that Harry loves the free press because he prefers some journalists over others, well, that is questionable.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by victor1319

Is not this part of the press of real value, which is "not close" to the Royals?

I mean, sure, the free press is mostly an illusion. But that Harry loves the free press because he prefers some journalists over others, well, that is questionable.

It really is not about preferring certain journalists over others. I just pointed out that Harry has friendships with particular journalists, which is a human thing, actually unrelated to the journalists' profession in terms of why they bonded with Harry. As well, there are journalists who do a fair and balanced job of reporting (which does not mean preferential treatment toward the royals either). And those are the journalists the Sussexes respect. In general, when he was a bachelor, Harry was very easygoing and he hung out with the press on tour. But he's always been wary of the worst elements of the press having grown up royal and witnessed the painful downsides of nasty, intrusive press coverage.

So of course, after marrying, Harry has been very concerned about protecting the privacy of his intimate relationships. That's normal.

The point is that the Sussexes understand the importance of a free press, but let's not kid ourselves that what the Daily Mail and other despicable tabloids are interested in has much to do with responsible journalism and freedom to report the news in a professional manner. The Sussexes would be more forthcoming and open if they weren't going to be endlessly and viciously blindsided, slammed and mischaracterized at every turn, mainly for clicks and greed, and often just for the heck of it.

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by victor1319

Is not this part of the press of real value, which is "not close" to the Royals?

I mean, sure, the free press is mostly an illusion. But that Harry loves the free press because he prefers some journalists over others, well, that is questionable.

I don't get why Harry preferring some journalists over others is questionable. All of us have some people in our lives (professional or personal) that we prefer simply because we can connect or relate to them.

Of course there are some journalists Harry doesn't prefer because they aren't honest in their reporting. He doesn't trust them....who would if one calls your wife vulgar, trying to tie her to terrorism, drought, murder uses a monkey to identify your child, accuses you or your wife of breaking phantom protocols or even writes stories they know are half truths or flat out lies.

Having a free for all 'free press' with no accountability or ethics is just as dangerous has having a controlled press.

[alvinking]

Really interesting

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e-of-legal-row

Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, kept a copy of a highly personal handwritten letter she sent to her father Thomas Markle, suggesting she may have correctly feared it would later be leaked to the media.

Court filings seen by the Guardian show that the duchess has a full record of the correspondence, including unpublished sections, which is now being used to assist her legal case against the Mail on Sunday for copyright infringement and invasion of privacy.

The duchess’s lawyers also allege that the letter was selectively edited by the Mail on Sunday to remove paragraphs which were highly critical of the British tabloid media, as well as comments which showed that Meghan retained genuine concern for her father’s wellbeing.

The documents also state that the Mail on Sunday did not request a comment from the royal family or inform Meghan that they were preparing to print the letter, in an apparent attempt to avoid an application for an injunction.

[MARG]

Hands up anyone who was surprised Meghan kept a copy of her letter to her father. 🤔

[Curryong]

Not me. My arms are firmly by my side. I think that was a very shrewd move of Meghan's as a matter of fact, with the family she so unfortunately possesses. How could she trust her father to NOT contact the media?

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Not me. My arms are firmly by my side. I think that was a very shrewd move of Meghan's as a matter of fact, with the family she so unfortunately possesses. How could she trust her father to NOT contact the media?

He didn't for about 6 months. That was, until her friends told about the letter... So the provocation worked

[Curryong]

I don't know how writing a private letter to one's father, telling him about the pain he and other family members caused herself and her husband by going to the media (and taking money for it) and begging him to please desist, can be described as 'provocation'. And IMO Thomas should have taken the high road and kept his daughter's letter hidden away for good. He didn't, however. I would say that Meghan knows her father very very very well.

[Zaira]

Its funny because I remember several commentators claiming way back last summer that she should just reach out to her dad! Even if he sells her out, at least she tried. And several even said she should keep a copy of all correspondence for protection.

Its funny how things change. People really just move the goal posts constantly.

It was extremely smart of Meghan to keep a copy given her father's antics. I would have done the same. She could have sent the letter in hope of him doing the right thing, but still protect herself.