Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Heavs]

Well it wouldn't be surprising if he did since he's the one who gave/sold the later to the MoS in the first place, co operated with other papers/GMB and has seemingly taken every opportunity to oppose his daughter since the wedding fiasco and "tell his side of the story".

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I'm taking this with enough salt to turn a freshwater lake into a briny pond but from a quick research, it seems Cosmopolitan is usually reliable with reliable sources but don't quote me on that because I've never actually read the magazine.

Anyways... according to this article, Thomas Markle will be testifying in the court case. On the side of the defendant against his own daughter.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/enterta...ocialflowFBCOS

So the article you linked talks about the Channel 5 program he cooperated on back in January 2020.

This is the link directly to Cosmo's own article, which actually sites US Weekly ,about TM's supposed testifying:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/enterta...-meghan-court/

Both Cosmo and US Weekly articles were written just days after the exit announcement, and site nothing more than each other as sources.

[Osipi]

Thanks. Obviously I didn't check the dates on the links.

[Katymcwaity]

Apparently Meghan is seeking an injunction against Mos so they can’t name the 5 friends who spoke to People magazine

https://twitter.com/jack_royston/sta...683136512?s=21

[ACO]

Well they were named in the confidential section of the hearing. That was done for a reason. I don't see how they can threaten that at all. That is kind of witness intimidation. Shall be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Katymcwaity

Apparently Meghan is seeking an injunction against Mos so they can’t name the 5 friends who spoke to People magazine

https://twitter.com/jack_royston/sta...683136512?s=21

All this litigation must be costing a lot. Hope Harry has some of his capital left at the end of this process.

[phss]

Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?

[ACO]

Originally Posted by phss

Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?

All 5 women really have no bearing on this case. It is one friend, "Friend A", who mentioned the letter. Not the others. So trying to say they are the "center of the case" is a bit of a reach. It is about copyright. Not their interview.

If they are not called as witnesses then there is really no reason for the public to know who they are. If any are called then that will be publicly known unless something happens to prevent that. And the MoS trying to reveal them before a trial date has even been set could play a major role in that decision.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by phss

Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?

Originally Posted by ACO

All 5 women really have no bearing on this case. It is one friend, "Friend A", who mentioned the letter. Not the others. So trying to say they are the "center of the case" is a bit of a reach. It is about copyright. Not their interview.

If they are not called as witnesses then there is really no reason for the public to know who they are. If any are called then that will be publicly known unless something happens to prevent that. And the MoS trying to reveal them before a trial date has even been set could play a major role in that decision.

As the matter is subjudice and none of us really know all the facts of the case, I would advice caution in what is said.

[poppy7]

Legally I would say there is little change of these women being kept anonymous.

There are no minors or vulnerable people involved. In doubt it will be granted. And even if it was, like in the days of a super injunction where things were only granted to protect minors, it will leak out anyway.

This really makes me think they didn't think through this at all.

The current Johnny Deep trial is a prime example. How many people have been mentioned. But he brought this case for other reasons than libel.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by poppy7

Legally I would say there is little change of these women being kept anonymous.

There are no minors or vulnerable people involved. In doubt it will be granted. And even if it was, like in the days of a super injunction where things were only granted to protect minors, it will leak out anyway.

This really makes me think they didn't think through this at all.

The current Johnny Deep trial is a prime example. How many people have been mentioned. But he brought this case for other reasons than libel.

Is there a need for them to be named?

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Denville

Is there a need for them to be named?

If they give evidence then they will be named. As is what happens when the court case does not involve minors or vulnerable people. If they dont, then probably there is no need to say anything.

This isn't a privacy concern. it is judicial and legal and as a result of the need for justice to be seen to be done, transcripts are public documents. Unless sealed by the courts. Which can happen particularly when minors are involved.

And I would reject Meghans call to sensitivity. Don't start the court case then.

[LadyGlendower]

Originally Posted by Katymcwaity

Apparently Meghan is seeking an injunction against Mos so they can’t name the 5 friends who spoke to People magazine

https://twitter.com/jack_royston/sta...683136512?s=21

Everyone has already to a great extent figured out who they are. Cringeworthy move by Meghan's team. MOS may just have them on the ropes in this legal battle.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Elenath

Well I'm sure that will do wonders for the relationship with his daughter en her family. If there was any hope of reconciliation he can kiss that goodbye.

I think he is well aware that the relationship is over in the same way that so many people who have been close to Meghan have discovered (Jessica Mulrooney being the latest) ie when Meghan drops you it is always for good.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by LadyGlendower

Everyone has already to a great extent figured out who they are. Cringeworthy move by Meghan's team. MOS may just have them on the ropes in this legal battle.

They don't care. There will be little winnings in this. Libels dont bring in cash anymore. The reason to take them needs to be about something else.

When newspapers get caught out, pictures that were blatant breaches of privacy or comments in articles. They settle out of court and publish apologies. Says a lot that they refused to in this instance.

There is little point in using for libel if it isn't to stop repeat behaviour in the future. Such as intrucive picture.

The MOS are having a great time. And they are also currently being sued by Depp. At least I think it's the same parent company.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Elenath

Well I'm sure that will do wonders for the relationship with his daughter en her family. If there was any hope of reconciliation he can kiss that goodbye.

What about her? He never mentioned the letter till her friends mentioned it.

She is bringing the court case and if he gives evidence, he will be subpoenaed anyway. This is all on her.

[Katymcwaity]

Originally Posted by poppy7

If they give evidence then they will be named. As is what happens when the court case does not involve minors or vulnerable people. If they dont, then probably there is no need to say anything.

This isn't a privacy concern. it is judicial and legal and as a result of the need for justice to be seen to be done, transcripts are public documents. Unless sealed by the courts. Which can happen particularly when minors are involved.

And I would reject Meghans call to sensitivity. Don't start the court case then.

I think the fact we don’t see more of this kind of action from Royals etc is that it gets very messy and it probably reflects how upset Meghan is that she is running the gauntlet. The MoS will delighted about the stories that the whole thing generates.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

"These five women are not on trial, and nor am I."

It seems that Meghan wants to change the way media reporting around trials works in general. Surely many would agree with her, myself among them. It is often trial by media for anyone and everyone involved (or not) in the case. Witnesses, family members on both sides, friends of those involved, colleagues-- all people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand are dragged under the microscope and can suffer terrible effects. Most importantly, this very often happens to the victim.

Unfortunately, "I'm not on trial here" is not a legal argument, nor is Meghan any different from anyone else who finds themselves at the center of a public trial undergoing scrutiny. She will and should get no special protection. This harkens back to "I thought it would be fair" and screams "Give me special treatment."

It is terrible that people considering whether to pursue legal action have to consider what effect it will have on the people involved. But a legal filing that basically says, "I shouldn't have to put up with this" is petulant.

[Denville]

I dont blame Meghan for fallng out with her father... but it is probalby "for good" and there wotn be any reconcilation.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

"These five women are not on trial, and nor am I."

It seems that Meghan wants to change the way media reporting around trials works in general. Surely many would agree with her, myself among them. It is often trial by media for anyone and everyone involved (or not) in the case. Witnesses, family members on both sides, friends of those involved, colleagues-- all people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand are dragged under the microscope and can suffer terrible effects. Most importantly, this very often happens to the victim.

Unfortunately, "I'm not on trial here" is not a legal argument, nor is Meghan any different from anyone else who finds themselves at the center of a public trial undergoing scrutiny. She will and should get no special protection. This harkens back to "I thought it would be fair" and screams "Give me special treatment."

It is terrible that people considering whether to pursue legal action have to consider what effect it will have on the people involved. But a legal filing that basically says, "I shouldn't have to put up with this" is petulant.

Yes it's appalling, but I save my empathy for women who bring rape trials and have to undergo the most horrendous cross examination. Or for families of murder victims who must sit through them. She brought this case presumably because she thought they would settle. She should have known better.

And unfortunately she is on trial because to win this outright the newspaper have to to make it a reasonable assumption that she intended that letter to be public.