Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media - Page 81

Duc_et_Pair · #**1601** 07-25-2020, 07:27 AM

That is the style of policy they follow from other monarchies: provide photoshoots, instagram posts, videos. With this they take the wind out of the sails of eventual claims by media that "it is in the public interest too see children of public persons".

In any lawsuit the Judge will see: George to school, George with animals, George at the balcony during the Trooping, George with grandpapa, George with doggie, George with Charlotte and rule that eventual public interest in the private lives of the Cambridge children are more than met, dismissing any justification for infringement of basic European human rights of the Cambridges and the Sussexes on having respect for their private- and family life. Archie is still too young to have George's media record.

Mbruno · #**1602** 07-25-2020, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roderick

The more they hide their child away, the more determined the press will be to photograph him and the more valuable those photos will be. Catherine and William are very shrewd in releasing one or two photos of each of their children on their birthdays but not much otherwise. That both satisfies the public appetite and keeps the paps away somewhat. I realise that Harry and Meghan have no obligation now to show their son to the world, but they are either not well advised or are not taking that advice in my opinion.

William and Catherine's children are obviously far more protected than Harry's family and they are generally considered off-limit, even by the British tabloid press.

By leaving the RF and moving to the celebrity capital of the world (LA), Harry has just exposed Archie to greater risk. Lawsuits, albeit justified in this case, won't discourage photographers from trying similar stunts in the future as long as the family remains unprotected.

QueenMathilde · #**1603** 07-25-2020, 02:54 PM

It's kind of a catch 22. If you put your children's pictures out there at all you're heavily criticized. Angelina got a lot of flack for selling her newborn's pictures for charity. And if you don't then the paps won't leave you alone.

Jacknch · #**1604** 07-29-2020, 02:08 PM

Several recent posts have been moved to the General News thread (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...0-a-47411.html). Let's now move on back to the Legal Actions here.

poppy7 · #**1605** 07-29-2020, 02:32 PM

Has anyone hear this.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/duchess-of-sussex-forced-to-pay-67-000-after-losing-first-round-of-legal-battle-zzn80g0pj

**Somebody** · #**1606** 07-29-2020, 03:59 PM

Most interesting to me was the following sentence: apparently, they are not willing to let the names of the 5 friends become public knowledge. Maybe they've found a way out of this lawsuit:

Quote:

Her bill was revealed as the court heard that forcing her to reveal the identities of five friends who gave an anonymous interview to a US magazine would be “an unacceptable price to pay” for pursuing the legal action against the newspaper.

Source: The Times

Tarlita · #**1607** 07-29-2020, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7

Has anyone hear this.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...ttle-zzn80g0pj

Thanks for the link Poppy. Well that is a hefty price to pay. Some have suggested there were no five friends to start with, and that it was all her doing.
But surely the newspaper could reveal who the five friends are.

Jacknch · #**1608** 07-29-2020, 04:08 PM

Indeed, it is interesting information and a reminder of how costly bringing a court case like this can be - and this is only the preliminary / pre-trial hearings isn't it?

poppy7 · #**1609** 07-29-2020, 04:16 PM

Well the lawyer mentioned a surname. Friend B. I am surprised it isn't on twitter. That will leak.

Denville · #**1610** 07-29-2020, 04:19 PM

Why does she not want to release the names?

ACO · #**1611** 07-29-2020, 04:36 PM

The friends went to People Mag anonymously. They didn't want the press in their business. Also not sure why they need to be revealed. One of them spoke of the letter, not all 5. So there is a point in asking why MoS wants them revealed so badly when they have little to nothing to do with the lawsuit.

That said -- I think most have a good idea who some of them are.

**Somebody** · #**1612** 07-29-2020, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

The friends went to People Mag anonymously. They didn't want the press in their business. Also not sure why they need to be revealed. One of them spoke of the letter, not all 5. So there is a point in asking why MoS wants them revealed so badly when they have little to nothing to do with the lawsuit.

If they hadn't talked, the letter would probably never have been revealed (and at least not at that point), so 'little to nothing to do with the lawsuit' sounds a little too generous.

poppy7 · #**1613** 07-29-2020, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

The friends went to People Mag anonymously. They didn't want the press in their business. Also not sure why they need to be revealed. One of them spoke of the letter, not all 5. So there is a point in asking why MoS wants them revealed so badly when they have little to nothing to do with the lawsuit.

That said -- I think most have a good idea who some of them are.

The MOS don't want it revealed. Or at least they seem uninterested. The point is over whether their names can be released in the process of the court case. Or whether they will be withheld.

Denville · #**1614** 07-29-2020, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

The friends went to People Mag anonymously. They didn't want the press in their business. Also not sure why they need to be revealed. One of them spoke of the letter, not all 5. So there is a point in asking why MoS wants them revealed so badly when they have little to nothing to do with the lawsuit.

That said -- I think most have a good idea who some of them are.

I have no idea.. but - if they dot want the press in their business, don't go talking to the Press. Dont speak to magazines....

ACO · #**1615** 07-29-2020, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody

If they hadn't talked, the letter would probably never have been revealed (and at least not at that point), so 'little to nothing to do with the lawsuit' sounds a little too generous.

But not all spoke of the letter. Only one. And they didn't tell MoS to print the letter. They did that. That is the violation in question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7

The MOS don't want it revealed. Or at least they seem uninterested. The point is over whether their names can be released in the process of the court case. Or whether they will be withheld.

They clearly do want them revealed as it is MoS who is pursuing it. They making that very clear. We shall see how it plays out though.

poppy7 · #**1616** 07-29-2020, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO

But not all spoke of the letter. Only one. And they didn't tell MoS to print the letter. They did that. That is the violation in question.

They clearly do want them revealed as it is MoS who is pursuing it. They making that very clear. We shall see how it plays out though.

They don't. She brought it up BUT their names would be released in the normal process of things. So they probably were just waiting for that and now are thinking. Well that will be more stories for us.

Denville · #**1617** 07-29-2020, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy7

They don't. She brought it up BUT their names would be released in the normal process of things. So they probably were just waiting for that and now are thinking. Well that will be more stories for us.

Is it possible that she will drop the case?

poppy7 · #**1618** 07-29-2020, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville

Is it possible that she will drop the case?

I think if this judgement goes against her that she might. I mean I would and use that as an excuse. If they go ahead and release their names, it will be bedlam.

Winnie · #**1619** 07-29-2020, 05:50 PM

Apparently one attorney on TV just now stated that "in court the accused has the 100% right to face the accuser. This is true on both sides of the case." He assumed that the 5 individuals must present themselves in court to be cross examined under oath on whether or not they were given permission to acknowledge a personal letter written by Meghan to her father. Plus where they got a copy of this personal letter. He also stated that making a copy of a personal handwritten letter before mailing was quite odd, which will probably also be brought up in court. He stated that if he cross-examined Meghan, he would insist on knowing if she made copies of every piece of personal correspondence before mailing and demanded some immediate proof in court. Interesting viewpoint from a legal professor. So many twists and turns. Makes my head hurt.

poppy7 · #**1620** 07-29-2020, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winnie

Apparently one attorney on TV just now stated that "in court the accused has the 100% right to face the accuser. This is true on both sides of the case." He assumed that the 5 individuals must present themselves in court to be cross examined under oath on whether or not they were given permission to acknowledge a personal letter written by Meghan to her father. Plus where they got a copy of this personal letter. He also stated that making a copy of a personal handwritten letter before mailing was quite odd, which will probably also be brought up in court. He stated that if he cross-examined Meghan, he would insist on knowing if she made copies of every piece of personal correspondence before mailing and demanded some immediate proof in court. Interesting viewpoint from a legal professor. So many twists and turns. Makes my head hurt.

Law differs between countries but 300 percent if this goes to court, each and everyone of them will be subpoenaed.

And yea all those are things a barrister would ripen into her about.