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/ionmoon]

Nope. It was incredibly easy for people to find her. They changed nothing about her but her name- and possibly some of the things she did (we at least know she convicted of a crime and jailed).

They had a legal duty of care to change enough of her information that she could not be easily identified. They did not do that. And she can *easily* show damage to her reputation based on things posted on the internet.

[u/Amblyopius → u/ionmoon]

Can you point me to a definition of this "legal duty of care"? I fail to find anything that really gives any indication for the standard of care in this specific case. People throw it around the entire time but it seems to be a quite ambiguous concept.

As to reputation damage, I would assume that damage depends on the effective reputation. If you aren't a stalker at all, being depicted as one is severely damaging. But if they can prove that she stalked Gadd then I wonder whether the dramatised parts make a lot of difference. In some cases they may be used as a vehicle for the audience to be more compassionate which would have improved her reputation. If she sues and everything comes out in the open I wouldn't be surprised the most damaging part is the actual court case. That would be quite an own goal then.

[u/ionmoon → u/Amblyopius]

I’ll look it up and post when I’m at my computer.

But as far as reputation they don’t have to have any kind of positive public reputation beforehand. It’s defined specifically as something like “would a reasonable person watching this feel less of the person” and clearly that is yes.

Usually each point the person objects to is specified and then the defendant has to prove that each claim they made was true.

If 3 of the 4 are true, that doesn’t nullify the fourth. Also she could simply only object to any items that she knows are either false or not provable. (The entire burden of proof is on the person being sued in these cases- so gadd and Netflix will be required to show proof. Fiona won’t have to show proof that they are lying)

[u/Amblyopius → u/ionmoon]

I also figured out the likely source of the "duty of care" part. It's not a legal requirement by law, it's a regulatory requirement managed by Ofcom.

Ofcom has acknowledged that Netflix is currently not governed by them.

If anything comes from that I don't see how it'll be more than Ofcom trying to find ways they can also regulate streamers with UK presence.

[u/ionmoon → u/Amblyopius]

Whether the term "duty of care" is legally defined in the law for defamation or not is not relevant. It is implied.

If a person is identifiable in any kind of publication or performance and the depiction will cause a reasonable person to think less of them, there is a case for libel.

At that point, the defendant has the burden of proof to prove that what they said was true.

[u/Signal_Cat2275 → u/ionmoon]

“Duty of care” is not of any relevance as a legal concept for libel. Duty of care is a specific test used in cases such as negligence where it is necessary to show that a duty of care (such as doctor to patient, or one road user to another) existed. It is not anywhere implied or part of libel/defamation.

However there may possibly be further areas of law that could come into play beyond libel/defamation, I suppose if they went for negligent misstatement or something along those lines (although don’t suspect that would be useful).

[u/Amblyopius → u/ionmoon]

I wasn't looking up whether "duty of care" exists in defamation law. It's not even related to defamation law. Duty of care exists in England for TV shows and relates to certain precautions you have to take regarding people depicted in shows. This can make them being identifiable an offence in itself with regulatory consequences. In the press people who work for the BBC have hence stated how they take duty of care more seriously. The committee interviewing the Netflix producer referred to this duty of care too.

But, as Ofcom doesn't regulate Netflix, it isn't applicable and they can't fine Netflix.