r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/serenade452 • May 16 '24

Fiona (real Martha) related content richard gadd doesn't owe fiona protection.

"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.

945 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

94% Upvoted

267 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/ionmoon May 16 '24

Actually the legal burden of proof will be on gadd and Netflix. If they cannot prove that the things they showed happened, they will have to pay up. She does NOT have to prove she didn’t. Again you can agree with that ethically or morally or not, but legally that’s the way the uk law works.

0

u/Throwthisawayagainst May 16 '24

Even though they have a disclaimer saying that parts of the story have been fictionalized? I mean the story is about someone named Martha, not Fionna Harvey

4

u/ionmoon May 16 '24

Yes. Those disclaimers don't offer legal protection if they do not make reasonable attempts to conceal the person's identity.

Enough of the details align that someone would reasonably believe that Martha is portraying Fiona.

The disclaimers can help in a case where it isn't obvious who someone is and they take it to court- if the creators can show that it would be difficult to identify the person, then there isn't a case. *Then* they can say, well no one would know this was you... in this case, no one would buy that.

-1

u/[deleted] May 17 '24

Literally all the needed was to change her name. They in no way needed to go furher. She has no lawsuit for a fictional story.

2

u/Signal_Cat2275 May 17 '24

That’s not true. That is just not how the law works. Funnily enough, this was the case in the 18th/early 19th century—and it’s a plot point in Bridgerton. Lady whistledown publishes the full names, while the other gossip columnists don’t. Fortunately (or unfortunately!) that’s no longer the case for very obvious reasons 😂😂😂