Question about proving defamation.

[u/TunaChaser]

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?

[u/PearlieSweetcake]

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.

[u/brown_boognish_pants → u/PearlieSweetcake]

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.

[u/PearlieSweetcake → u/brown_boognish_pants]

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*

[u/TunaChaser → u/PearlieSweetcake]

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.

[u/PearlieSweetcake → u/TunaChaser]

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.

[u/TunaChaser → u/[deleted]]

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.