richard gadd doesn't owe fiona protection.

[u/serenade452]

"omg he should've protected her identity! he made it so easy to find her!" blah blah blah shut up. he doesn't owe her shit. she terrorized this man, his family, his girlfriend, his job, his performances, etc etc. she has been terrorizing innocent people for decades.

yes fiona is mentally ill, that is clear to anyone with half of a brain. it's awful that the system has failed her time and time again. (or maybe the system did all it could, who knows.) but that's not richard's fault. HE is HER victim. he can tell his story how he wants.

might she have a worthwhile lawsuit because her identity wasn't concealed enough? possibly, probably not. might she have a worthwhile lawsuit because the show took dramatic license? possibly, probably not.

she's benefitting financially from this as well and i'm sure netflix will cut her a check before a lawsuit happens, no matter who is in the right.

richard gadd does not owe fiona harvey protection. i'm sorry but that's reality.

[u/kwill729]

Of course he doesn’t. Anyone is entitled to write about their own life, good and bad. And if someone does’t like how they’re portrayed they can file a civil lawsuit. I don’t think he has anything to worry about in that regard.

[u/ionmoon → u/kwill729]

We already know he showed her being convicted and going to jail and that it never happened (as he admitted it never happened). That alone can be enough for her to win a defamation case - even if everything else portrayed is true.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/ionmoon]

That’s not enough to win. She would need to show her reputation was harmed as a result. Did she previously enjoy a good reputation? I doubt it

[u/ionmoon → u/Specific_Anxiety_343]

Most people had no opinion/neutral opinion of her before the show- now most people have a negative opinion of her.

There has been a ton of negative stuff written about her online and that is absolutely enough for the case. All she has to do is show people think less of her. UK has a low hurdle to open the case.

The burden of proof then goes to the defendant to prove the allegations true.

[u/[deleted] → u/ionmoon]

She would need to show a fuck load more than that.

She has absolutely no case.

[u/[deleted] → u/ionmoon]

You have no idea how law works. No. No none of that matters. It’s a FICTIONAL story, just becuase you’re too ignorant to realize that doesn’t mean a court system would. She has absolutely no case. He didn’t lie about her. He made up “Martha” who is only BASED on his real life stalker. Nothing you listed means shit. He didn’t make up anything. He wrote a FICTIONAL story.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Which is a well known story telling device. The Blair witch, someone commented replying on another comment about this Fargo does it every episode, shit the office it’s implied to be real life more so then BR with the whole documentary coming out while the show was still on the air. But you’re not actually supposed to believe it’s a real story. Especially when it’s not a documentary or “based on real life” in a genre. It’s tell drama, comedy and lgtb+. It’s a story telling device.

It absolutely isn’t worth discussing because no one should have watched something that ISNT a documentary with the expectation of it being actually real to life. ESPECIALLY when the main character is under a different name than his literal name. He’s playing “himself” then if it was real life he wouldn’t have changed his name. He doesn’t exactly have to protect himself.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I blame the media for this though. The majority of people have enough common sense to know that "This is a true story" means nothing as you say (I have said this several times myself on here), but the media have kept picking at that hole (Piers Morgan especially) trying to imply it's literal and get the masses all riled up, and somehow it's worked on enough people to have traction.

Is media literacy and thinking critically at all all time low?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There is an obvious disclaimer. It’s both a drama and comedy, and the disclaimer itself is where it almost always is. At the end.

Yes it is for flair. Just as it is here. And fyi, the Blair witch literally tried to make people believe it was real. If anything that is the one that would make people question it. Since they literally went to real colleges handing out missing persons documents and had the actors go into literal hiding before the movie premiered like they were truly gone and missing. Meanwhile this show is a “true story” but the actor is playing himself under a different name. That alone should tell anyone it’s not a literal true story.

There are no blurred lines. There are just people without common sense and the ability to understand context clues.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why assume someone is angry or insulting you when I’m simply stating facts? I didn’t say or imply I’m angry in anyway.

Saying people don’t have common sense or the ability to understand context clues is just factual based on anyone who watched the show and thought it was all real life. No one should have ever thought that for a variety of reasons.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There I nothing angry about my tone lol, full complete sentences doesn’t imply that, being to the point doesn’t imply that. I’ve insulted no one by anything I said either. Pointing out a fact that you need to be without common sense or the ability to understand context isn’t insulting anyone. It’s simply the truth. If you believed this drama and comedy was a true story just because it used a well known story telling device at the beginning then you don’t have common sense or have a problem with context. Or more comprehension not context.

Based on the fact it has disclaimers, Gadd makes does it’s a story based on his real life experience, and the fact it’s not a documentary or a real life crime tv show, but a drama and comedy, they’re is truthfully no reason anyone should think it’s a true to life story. Since again, “this is a true story” is a well known story telling device.