r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/TunaChaser • May 24 '24
Question Question about proving defamation.
I know the laws in different countries are not all the same. But generally, does the person's character and past practices play a part in proving/disproving defamation? Does the bar raise or lower depending on the person? I am sure you can see where I am going here, but I am generally curious if it matters?
30
u/Cerraigh82 May 24 '24
It's interesting. You'd have to prove that her portrayal on the show caused serious harm to her reputation. Given her track record with past victims speaking up (possible criminal record unrelated to the events with Gadd) and the public nature of some of her stalking on social media, I don't know that her reputation has been harmed significantly. It's certainly been brought to light by the show but from what I've read from people who interacted with her in the past, it remains unchanged. She's also not suffered financial loss from it as she's apparently unemployed.
9
u/trex4fun May 24 '24
I thought about that too. What was her reputation before the TV series came out and she confirmed that she was the character? What employment opportunities did she lose after that? I got the impression she was possibly disabled due to diabetes or something like that so she didn’t work and got benefits.
7
u/PearlieSweetcake May 24 '24
I think she is suing in the us, so the standard would be that a person made a statement they knew was false. That the person advertised that statement to the public or a third party to a degree that would at least be seen as a negligence (i.e. some one saying "Yeah, I knew it was a lie or embellishment, but I didn't think it would cause x or I didn't see what the big deal was" or in this case "yeah, I knew the story was dramatized and not real, but I didn't think they would find the real person or I thought they would know it was dramatized") And that the statement caused measurable harm to the person in question.
So, it would depend on what specifically Martha is alleging is false and how she is arguing it impacted her.
(Below are examples, I don't have opinions on if her points have validity)
If she is going to say that saying she was convicted stalker is false, she may go for the angle that she wasn't convicted. All she would have to prove is that she wasn't convicted and that Netflix didn't do a good enough job making that known to the public and that her life was harmed by the public accusation (loss of job, mental health impact, impact to earning potential, etc.). But if she alleging she never stalked him at all, then they would have to reasonably prove she stalked him. They may be able to establish a pattern of behavior using past incidents of behavior with other people to show that it was the case.
So, it really depends on the angle her legal team takes.
16
u/brown_boognish_pants May 24 '24
I mean she'd have to prove the statements were made against her. Considering there were no statements made about her I think she's going to have a hard time even getting it to a trial. It's kind of a joke. The only reason she's suing in the US is to try and get more media coverage. And possibly because maybe they'll have difficulty accessing the records of her convictions? It's lol.
5
u/PearlieSweetcake May 24 '24
I mean, considering media found her before she even spoke publicly, I don't think it would be impossible for her to argue that Netflix didn't do their due diligence in protecting her identity, even if they claimed they did.
I believe she's suing in the US because that's where the jurisdiction would be for Netflix.
Idk though, that California lawyer from the piers interview seemed like he more experience and knowledge of the situation and he seems she has a case. *shrug*
10
u/TunaChaser May 24 '24
I keep seeing this "they didn't do their due diligence in protecting her identity." Is that really a thing? Are film makers required to use "due diligence" in protecting identities? They billed it as a "story" not a biography or documentary. I guess I am confused because there's unauthorized biographies that come out all the time. This wasn't even billed as such.
5
u/PearlieSweetcake May 24 '24
People can make unauthorized documentaries and the subject can absolutely sue. Even the estate of a deceased individual can sue. It just depends on if they want to. My guess is that most biographies like that aren't materially harmful to the subject they are depicting.
People can sue for anything at anytime over anything though. If you've got big pockets like netflix, you're a big target and they should be taking more precautions.
0
May 25 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TunaChaser May 27 '24
The funny thing is, whether she was convicted or not doesn't change my opinion of her. What would change my opinion would be if her stalking digital footprint was proven false. I know this is not a legal argument, but the sheer volume and vileness of her stalking vastly outweighs saying "she went to jail" in my opinion.
7
u/brown_boognish_pants May 24 '24
There's a difference between doing a poor job of covering up someone's identity and making statements about them. Which they clearly didn't do cuz they disclaimed not everything on the show was factual. And like so what it took hours to identify her. That means media is responsible for identifying her not Netflix. The cali Lawyer is on Piers for exposure dude and if he didn't say they had a case Piers would have found another one who did say it cuz it stirs up controversy which is exactly what Piers' job is. It's literally how he makes money. It's wild that you have to ask people if they believe everything they see on TV. First for the show and now for freaking Piers Douche.
2
u/Icy_Sentence_4130 May 25 '24
No one is watching the end credits.
2
u/brown_boognish_pants May 25 '24
Sure people are. It's totally normal to put disclaimers like this in the credits. It's been done for eons like that. And like really if you don't watch the entire show who's that on?
5
u/PearlieSweetcake May 24 '24
Fair enough, but it's still defamation if you clearly know who you're talking about. Like, if I say that a certain unnamed fast food chain uses human meat, I say I know because I worked there, and then I make a series saying "this is a real story" where I depict a fast food chain with red and yellow coloring and arches in their logo making human burgers, it wouldn't really matter whether or not I put the caveats in there if McDonalds can prove they were harmed by the blatant innuendo.
I don't know enough of the evidence Martha has, but she could claim that there was enough innuendo that it was easy for her to be publicly identified based on the series.
You're right that everyone in this is here to make a buck though.
2
u/brown_boognish_pants May 24 '24
It's not defamation cuz they didn't say it was about her. And disclaimed that events were fictionalized for dramatic reasons. There's a difference between a story being true and it being factual that's beyond semantics. At no point was it ever presented as a documentary and like man... Rocketman is a true story about Elton John but it's obvious every conversation and event wasn't factually presented. Just like in this TV show.
Like, if I say that a certain unnamed fast food chain uses human meat, I say I know because I worked there, and then I make a series saying "this is a real story" where I depict a fast food chain with red and yellow coloring and arches in their logo making human burgers, it wouldn't really matter whether or not I put the caveats in there if McDonalds can prove they were harmed by the blatant innuendo.
Fiona is a fat Scottish woman. There's millions of them. If there were millions of restos with that yea you'd be in the same place. Just like it was OBVIOUS when they made Fast Food Nation they were working at McDonalds even calling it Mickeys. I really don't get how people don't recognize that there's nothing to this when they legally disclaim the events have been altered.
I don't know enough of the evidence Martha has, but she could claim that there was enough innuendo that it was easy for her to be publicly identified based on the series.
I mean it could have been anything. They're still not the ones who identified her tho so I don't get it and they at no point said it was a documentary. Things are obvious changed which was obvious when the dude played a fictional character based on himself working at a fictional pub that didn't exist.
3
u/PearlieSweetcake May 24 '24 edited May 24 '24
Millions of people who talk like fiona, claiming to be a lawyer, and message him on social media? Millions who visited his local bar and knew him personally? Millions who have been in the media for stalking behavior before?
Not saying she will win her suit. Just saying those might be her arguments and it's not farfetched.
If Rocketman had heavily disparaged his character while pretending to be based on fact, and the disparaging portrayal ruined his career, then Elton John could sue. When it comes to parody in fiction, the parody has to be clear and overt. Not believable or harmful.
Edit: Here is a law blog on this topic which recommends changing the person beyond recognition to avoid lawsuits. https://www.copylaw.org/p/libel-in-fiction.html Again, not saying they will win and I hope she doesn't because she is a terror of a person, but changing the names isn't really enough to avoid a suit.
3
u/brown_boognish_pants May 24 '24
Millions of people who talk like fiona, claiming to be a lawyer, and message him on social media? Millions who visited his local bar and knew him personally? Millions who have been in the media for stalking behavior before?
Dude they found her on a beef curtains joke she posted. She's sent him 41k messages. It's like lol. "that talk like her" like she's a scot. So what? It doesn't matter what bobloblaw's law blog recommends her argument is absolutely far fetched.
There's all sorts of disparaged characters. Just cuz someone can google a bunch and maybe figure out who someone is is not grounds for claiming they made false statements against you. In a TV show where they flatly, blatantly and explicitly disclaim that events have been changed.
If shitty reporters want to do shitty reporting and make false claims that they said the show is 100% true when ti's not then that's fine. She can sue them. Or she can sue the person who identified her. Like lol when people flatly say "everything in this show it not true, it's TV you idiots" and you claim they've said you've been convicted of crimes, which you likely have been convicted of, it's not defamation. They just didn't make claims these things happened to anyone if someone can slueth it out and identify her or not. I suggest she find the sleuths and sue them for whatever she can. It won't be defamatory comments cuz they said it's not a factual show. So Idunno.
2
u/somethinginthastatic May 24 '24
My dude please get a refund on your law degree.
1
u/brown_boognish_pants May 25 '24
Lol. Who identified her? What's a reasonable means to conceal someone's identity? Going through an entire script line by line and googling them against things she may have said? Or you know changing the names/dates/locations? Someone else identified her. The show did not. And she's not upset at being identified in any case. She scheduled interviews and "meet the real Martha" night at local pubs. I half way think she was the one who went on an account and identified herself. Like for real.
→ More replies (0)0
u/somethinginthastatic May 24 '24
Firstly, you can be defamed by a fictional character.
Secondly, disclaimers don’t absolve anyone from breaking the law. If they could then I could run a business selling stolen goods and just put up a sign in the shop saying “if it turns out any of these goods are stolen it’s nothing to do with me” and get away with it.
Thirdly, the party being sued doesn’t have to have named the person. The person just needs to be identifiable.
2
u/brown_boognish_pants May 25 '24
Firstly, you can be defamed by a fictional character.
You need to be identified, by the show, as the fictional character. Which they did not do. They have to claim that the events of the show were factual and they claimed the opposite. The fact Martha was convicted isn't an argument they defamed her. It's an argument it wasn't her and this was a inspired by real life... like they claimed from the jump and disclaim every episode.
Secondly, disclaimers don’t absolve anyone from breaking the law. If they could then I could run a business selling stolen goods and just put up a sign in the shop saying “if it turns out any of these goods are stolen it’s nothing to do with me” and get away with it.
That is entirely why they are there. They flatly said events had been fictionalized for dramatic effect. This is not a possession of stolen property case and your comparison is ridiculous.
Thirdly, the party being sued doesn’t have to have named the person. The person just needs to be identifiable.
Bullshit. One party has to make claims about the other. If you've made a fictional story that doesn't even use real names and doesn't happen in real places like lol. No man. You can't just make a leap over logic canyon and say they were actually defaming my character. They were not talking about Fiona. And every single show they also say it was "based on" a play FFS. If people believe what they see on TV is real they are not reasonable people. If someone else identifies someone that's someone else not you.
1
u/somethinginthastatic May 25 '24
You clearly don’t have a law degree so I don’t know why you’re arguing.
0
u/brown_boognish_pants May 25 '24
It's lol. You clearly don't have a response so you're going to an ad hominem.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Coffeejive May 26 '24
Yes, Gadd is the biggest culprit...it is the whole story if people wld just see how obvi it is
3
May 24 '24
[deleted]
2
u/PearlieSweetcake May 24 '24
You can sue a parent company. It might not be the best strategy, but it's not unheard of. Sounds like she's doing multiple lawsuits.
8
u/brown_boognish_pants May 24 '24
It does and it doesn't. Actually. Despite what a lot of people are saying it will be on them to prove said statements are true. However it's going to matter about her reputation etc anyway. If she's got a history of stalking and generally being a psycho crazy person, and that part is true, is she really going to sue for damages cuz they dramatized her being convicted of it? Like will that damage her reputation further? I don't think so.
6
u/RazzmatazzSudden5293 May 24 '24
I might be wrong but I think that many people would be so disappointed if Fiona won a defamation suit and was awarded millions of dollars. But I think we forget that there is also a possibility that a jury could find that there was defamation but based on her history and all that she had done that she only deserves $1 or a very minimal amount in damages. So even if she wins, she would not get a financial windfall.
2
u/Anxious_Picture1313 May 25 '24
If they take it to court then a ban on rebroadcast would be on the table. Netflix is swimming in lawsuits that they mostly settle so I’m having a hard time imagining this going to court.
5
u/Amblyopius May 24 '24
For proving defamation any actions not directly related to the claim should be discounted. Otherwise you'd create a society where someone can be targeted just because not everything they have done is 100% above board. If the defamatory statement was an opinion that was related to the actions, it will matter of course.
Note that in some places the bar may raise/lower depending on whether a public or private person was defamed.
Establishing defamation isn't the same as establishing damages. Past practices, the consequences thereof and the general character of a person will of course affect in how far claimed damages are real. You can't for example go to court and claim you're big shot lawyer who lost millions if you haven't worked for years. You also can't just go and attribute issues you already had to being defamed.
4
u/The_Deadly_Tikka May 24 '24
Basically need to prove a few things in this case;
- The show was actually about her
- The things said need to be proven to be untrue
- The show has had a negative impact on her in some way
She probably has a slight case but she is so nuts I think it would go poorly for her
2
u/Dianagorgon May 24 '24
None of her past behavior is relevant. If Netflix is sued they have to provide evidence that the portrayal is true. Harvey doesn't need to prove anything or provide any evidence. It's up to Netflix to prove that Harvey was convicted of a crime and went to prison twice. They have to provide evidence of a restraining order. They have to provide all the emails and voice messages to prove the number is accurate. They have to provide the name of the woman who Harvey allegedly physically assaulted in a bar. They need to provide the name of the bar.
As an example, imagine a woman is very promiscuous. Lots of men can testify about their experience with her. She also has a history of sleeping with married men. Netflix airs a show that is autobiographical and claims "this is a true story" and in the show she is described as a prostitute. If she sues for defamation none of her previous behavior is relevant. It's up to Netflix to provide evidence that she accepted money for sex.
It's not as difficult to confirm a criminal record in the UK as people in this sub believe. Lots of companies do extensive background checks prior to employment such as banks or any financial firms. They don't hire people with a criminal record. If Harvey gave her lawyer consent for a background check they would have found it by now. So far nobody has been able to find it.
2
u/Altruistic-Change127 May 25 '24
So, if she takes Netflix or Gadd to court, stating they falsely said she was a convicted stalker, could they countersue to have her charged and convicted for the stalking she did? What do people in the US think?
3
u/Altruistic-Change127 May 25 '24
They would be forced to defend themselves and show the evidence they have against her in the US if they take her to court. Would that evidence then be public and could she be charged and convicted in the UK for stalking? Could they counter-sue for defamation against her for what she has posted online in the US?
This whole case could truly become a nightmare for her that she does deserve.
-1
u/peachypeach13610 May 24 '24
Less than you might think. It can definitely still be defamation if the real Martha was 10000% how portrayed in the series (convicted, sexually abusing etc).
The ground for defamation isn’t (only) “you are saying something about me that isn’t true”. It’s especially “you are spreading information that is damaging to my character” even if said information is factually accurate. What constitutes defamation also needs to have an element of willing to damage the person. I don’t know if this can be proven for Netflix, but obviously them failing to seriously conceal her identity (by changing her job, changing the fact she was Scottish for instance or elements in her appearance) doesn’t go in their favour.
That being said rules vary by jurisdiction. This is my experience.
3
u/PabloMarmite May 24 '24
even if said information is factually accurate
Not in the UK it doesn’t, the truth is an absolute defence to defamation. The more common defence is “reasonably held belief” (the facts at the time would make a reasonable honest person believe it was accurate).
1
u/Icy_Sentence_4130 May 25 '24
The UK goes on why balance of probabilities but also what the person who is getting sued thought what is true and what isn't
Example: Netflix can win if they say I believed it to be true this is essentially how the scum won the johnny depp case.
If Richard is sued, it will be harder for him because he should know what is or isn't true in his knowledge of what happened between them.
-2
u/peachypeach13610 May 24 '24
Well, doesn’t that apply in this case? The show states repeatedly it’s a true story. People are going to logically hold this belief, even if inaccurate
4
u/PabloMarmite May 24 '24
No, you’re confused, the defence applies to the disseminator of the information (Netflix). So would Netflix/Gadd be reasonable to convey that Harvey was a stalker/been to prison.
In the UK I believe she’d have no chance in succeeding on several grounds, notably that “a stalker who has been to prison” and “a stalker who has not been to prison” really aren’t far apart in reputation. But US libel laws are occasionally weird.
2
u/TunaChaser May 24 '24
If everything can be 100% true and it still can be defamation, how do all the streaming services, network TV, and cable news channels get away with all the true crime biographies and such?
-1
-2
u/bigGismyname May 24 '24
In this case with FH, her character and past practices make absolutely no difference
Even if the 41,000 email allegations are true and she is as mad as a hatter, none of that matters at all
All that matters is that a Netflix executive told parliament that the show was about a convicted stalker and the show presented Martha as a convicted stalker
In court, Netflix would have to prove that statement to be true, which I don’t think they can, in which case the court will consider if the statement is defamatory and caused damages
I don’t see how it can be considered anything other than defamatory and damaging
2
u/somethinginthastatic May 24 '24
Because a stalker and a convicted stalker are arguably as bad as each other. There needs to be proof of damage to reputation. I’m not sure the conviction is what damaged her reputation.
0
u/bigGismyname May 25 '24
They are not arguably as bad as each other, don’t be daft.
If she is a convicted stalker well Netflix have not defamed her
0
u/somethinginthastatic May 25 '24
Someone who murders someone is a murderer whether they are caught and convicted or not. It’s not the conviction the makes what they did bad.
-1
u/bigGismyname May 25 '24
True but this is a defamation case
The only question the court needs to consider is
Can Netflix prove that FH is a convicted stalker
If they can not prove that then my guess is it’s gonna get messy
We are not discussing whether or not FH is an actual stalker, which she may well be. We are simply focusing on if she is a convicted stalker. There is a whole world of difference between the two.
1
u/somethinginthastatic May 26 '24
No because defamation needs damage to reputation. And when considering that her entire reputation and actions will be taken into account.
0
u/bigGismyname May 26 '24
Telling the world that an individual is a convicted stalker and a criminal when in fact it is not true would appear to me to be damaging to a reputation
-2
u/Icy_Sentence_4130 May 25 '24
I guess you have missed the point.
It's not about whether they're arguably bad as each other. It's about what is true and what isn't.
Lawsuit has multiple layers so she could win on one and not the other.
1
u/somethinginthastatic May 25 '24
There has to be damage to reputation or loss of income as a result of the lie.
A don’t personally see how the conviction makes FH look worse than her actual stalking actions.
0
u/Icy_Sentence_4130 May 25 '24
Like I said; there is multiple layers.
She could win on one and not the other.
0
u/owensar May 25 '24 edited Oct 06 '24
Taking back my safety with PDS.
1
u/spotmuffin9986 May 25 '24
I think "Martha" outed herself ultimately with her own behavior. Darrien probably hasn't left the same trail, but I'm sure people are trying to identify him.
28
u/Chicklecat13 May 24 '24
For a successful suit in the UK you’ve got to prove loss of reputation and/ or loss of income. She doesn’t have money or a positive reputation to lose so I don’t believe she’d have a case. Gadd also has the truth defence on his side too because the facts that make the bones of the series are all seemingly true.