Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Fem]

Originally Posted by yukari

That's the question, isn't it? It would be even funnier if the paps turns out to be an American working for American paps agency.

Splash News & Pictures Agency is an american company, though they do also have UK offices. They're quite often the ones getting photos of the Sussexes. I think they were also the ones who took the photos of the Cotswolds home.

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

So... is the lawyer saying that other pap pics of them in public were done with their "acquiescence or consent"?

That's why it's not a good idea to sue over photos unless they really cross a line, because it looks exactly like that.

[Madame Verseau]

This just came over on Omid Scobie's Twitter: Harry is suing the Sunday Times for reporting the Sussexes bailed on the Invictus charity event because of the Netflix deal. Royal reporter Roya Nikkah wrote the story. With Invictus backing this up, stating the story is false I don't see how the Times wins here.

[acdc1]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

This just came over on Omid Scobie's Twitter: Harry is suing the Sunday Times for reporting the Sussexes bailed on the Invictus charity event because of the Netflix deal. Royal reporter Roya Nikkah wrote the story. With Invictus backing this up, stating the story is false I don't see how the Times wins here.

Not saying the press was right in this instance (they’re not), but it seems like H&M are extremely trigger-happy with suing the press these days.

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

This just came over on Omid Scobie's Twitter: Harry is suing the Sunday Times for reporting the Sussexes bailed on the Invictus charity event because of the Netflix deal. Royal reporter Roya Nikkah wrote the story. With Invictus backing this up, stating the story is false I don't see how the Times wins here.

This is a terrible move by Harry, given the incidence (caused by Extinction Rebellion) that happened last weekend. A lot of politician and commentators believe the protest blockage of newspaper printing presses (Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, The Sun, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, The Times, Sunday Times, London Evening Standard, Financial Times) was an attack of free speech and freedom of press.

The Sunday Times' reporting is definitely false, but I don't think suing the press is helping his cause. Even the Invictus has confirm that the decision for charity event occur before the Netflix deal, so effectively the false story has been shut down. I don't see the point suing the Sunday Times. The Daily Mail has also reported the same, is he suing them as well?

Imagine every public figure filing a lawsuit for every false stories published by the media, there will be endless court cases.

Is Harry and Meghan seriously unaware of freedom of press?

[Madame Verseau]

Freedom of the press does not mean printing a false story that could cause harm. Writing that the Sussexes dumped Invictus could have impacted the event to go forward at all or make it hard it for getting replacements. The Times needs to print a retraction and an apology and Harry would drop the suit. Otherwise Roya would have to name her source at trial to stick with the story.

[Curryong]

That story by Roya was false and I think Harry is expecting a swift retraction and apology by the Sunday Times rather than a full court case. The story was an additional thumping in addition to the DM going full pelt about Frogmore Cottage renovations on the same weekend. He (and the Invictus spokesperson) closed these stories down quickly.

[Madame Verseau]

On the Times website there is scrawl at the top saying this story is subject to a legal action by the Duke of Sussex. Not Sure if that is an acknowledgement the Times stepped in it here. I'm not sure if Roya and the editor are having a come to Jesus meeting with the brass with the choices clean up this mess or clean out your desk.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

This just came over on Omid Scobie's Twitter: Harry is suing the Sunday Times for reporting the Sussexes bailed on the Invictus charity event because of the Netflix deal. Royal reporter Roya Nikkah wrote the story. With Invictus backing this up, stating the story is false I don't see how the Times wins here.

As a matter of fact, a false story is not sufficient to characterize libel. In the UK, a possible defense is to argue that the story was a "fair comment in a matter of public interest", meaning that the newspaper had reasons to believe (and genuninely believed) that the story was true when it published it and that it did its best to verify the accuracy of the story within the time constraints imposed by the urgency to publish a matter of public interest.



In the US, because of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment, winning a libel case on the grounds of publication of false information is even more difficult as the plaintiff has to prove that the newspaper acted on malicious intent, i.e that it knew that the story was false and deliberately published it nonetheless to harm the plaintiff.



It may look that UK and US law are similar in that respect, but the burden of proof is reversed in the two countries. In the UK the defendant has to prove, as a defense, that it did not act maliciously while, in the US, it is the contrary, i.e. the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant acted maliciously. Either way, as I said in the beginning, the fact that the story was false in itself is not enough.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

As a matter of fact, a false story is not sufficient to characterize libel. In the UK, a possible defense is to argue that the story was a "fair comment in a matter of public interest", meaning that the newspaper had reasons to believe (and genuninely believed) that the story was true when it published it and that it did its best to verify the accuracy of the story within the time constraints imposed by the urgency to publish a matter of public interest.



In the US, because of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment, winning a libel case on the grounds of publication of false information is even more difficult as the plaintiff has to prove that the newspaper acted on malicious intent, i.e that it knew that the story was false and deliberately published it nonetheless to harm the plaintiff.



It may look that UK and US law are similar in that respect, but the burden of proof is reversed in the two countries. In the UK the defendant has to prove, as a defense, that it did not act maliciously while, in the US, it is the contrary, i.e. the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant acted maliciously. Either way, as I said in the beginning, the fact that the story was false in itself is not enough.

So unless The Times settles this, it will be another drawn out and costly lawsuit?


Edited to add: This is a complaint not a lawsuit

[JessRulz]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

On the Times website there is scrawl at the top saying this story is subject to a legal action by the Duke of Sussex. Not Sure if that is an acknowledgement the Times stepped in it here. I'm not sure if Roya and the editor are having a come to Jesus meeting with the brass with the choices clean up this mess or clean out your desk.

The scrawl is at the top of the original article, not the entire The Times website. Standard procedure when an article has a IPSO complaint made about it. No need to exaggerate.

The Times is not going to have a "come to Jesus meeting" with Roya over this particular article - at most, the article will be retracted and a two-line apology published. Perhaps a donation to the Invictus Games if The Times wants to win some favour.

Let's be realistic here.

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

So unless The Times settles this, it will be another drawn out and costly lawsuit?


Edited to add: This is a complaint not a lawsuit

If it's a complaint to the Sunday Times, then I'm glad. I do not want this to go to the courts. Harry and Meghan has filed too many lawsuits to date. Frankly, I think the British public are sick of it (from reading the social media posts under BBC, sky or itv news).

[Curryong]

And no doubt Harry and Meghan are sick of false stories appearing in the British Press casting them in a negative light over something they haven't done.

Unfortunately, before Harry filed that complaint the original story reappeared, copied within minutes in online British tabloids, complete with embroideries about shattered Invictus vets angry at Harry, and on dozens of overseas inline sites as well.

[Osipi]

In a way, I'm glad that Harry was quick to file a complaint against the Sunday Times in regards to the false Invictus stories. This shows me that if there's one thing you *don't* do its attack someone's child and to me, the Invictus Games are just as much Harry's child as Archie is. He has always been deeply involved and passionate about this organization and that hasn't changed.

It also lays to rest, for me, the speculations that with the "new life", Harry and the Invictus Games would part ways or become obsolete.

Good going Harry!!

[texankitcat]

So now they are Legally going after US news organizations as well. Welcome to America Harry. It’s a good thing they are becoming financially independent so they can pay their own legal fees. Their Lawyers will have bigger mansions than they do in no time.

[ACO]

Well the Times has removed the article.

[ACO]

I have no issue with him filing a complaint over a blatant lie. They were implying he was dismissing something extremely important to him. It spread around as fact. They have since removed it and now it’s been explained it wasn’t even officially scheduled. It was just in conversation. Anyways it was corrected though not that it matters overall. Damage was done.

[Humbugged]

Originally Posted by texankitcat

So now they are Legally going after US news organizations as well. Welcome to America Harry. It’s a good thing they are becoming financially independent so they can pay their own legal fees. Their Lawyers will have bigger mansions than they do in no time.

Well that agency was taking photos in BC where it is illegal to take pap pics .And guess what they now live in California and their are rules their about taking pap pics as well

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Freedom of the press does not mean printing a false story that could cause harm. Writing that the Sussexes dumped Invictus could have impacted the event to go forward at all or make it hard it for getting replacements. The Times needs to print a retraction and an apology and Harry would drop the suit. Otherwise Roya would have to name her source at trial to stick with the story.

There are very, very few protections for public figures in the United States when it comes to false stories, including damaging stories, printed in the press. Freedom of the press does in fact extend, in most cases, to printing false stories that cause harm, at least when it comes to public figures. Nor do reporters have to "name their sources" at trial- the burden is on the moving party.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Humbugged

Well that agency was taking photos in BC where it is illegal to take pap pics .And guess what they now live in California and their are rules their about taking pap pics as well

There are going to be photos of them all the time, if they continue with a public career..

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by ACO

Well the Times has removed the article.

After getting a ton of free publicity when Harry made the complaint, which was probably their goal to start with.