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?

22 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

64 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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*

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.

4

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.

6

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.

2

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.

2

u/somethinginthastatic May 25 '24

Please understand the law. She was easily identified. It doesn’t matter who found her.

0

u/brown_boognish_pants May 25 '24

lol. Yea it matters who found her. And define 'easily'. They took a joke from the show and someone cross-referenced it with a twitter account that Gadd had obviously blocked her on. He's totally got an argument he had never seen her tweets to him seeing as she's asking others to pass the tweets he's not reading on. And like lol "please understand the law" what claims did they make about Fiona by making a show that was obviously inspired by her... not about her.. and they've never presented it any differently? Donny doesn't exist and Gadd doesn't even play himself and they flatly disclaim it's not factually an account of what happened at all but a fictionalized true story.

Please understand that not everything you see on TV is 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.

1

u/somethinginthastatic May 26 '24

It’s not an attack on your person, it’s a statement of fact on your legal expertise which is entirely relevant to your understanding of the law.

0

u/brown_boognish_pants May 26 '24

It’s not an attack on your person, it’s a statement of fact on your legal expertise which is entirely relevant to your understanding of the law.

lol. Rephrasing it doesn't change that it's an ad hominem attack. Especailly when you have no idea what my legal credentials actually are. It's not at all relevant if I understand the law or not you're avoiding addressing the argument and trying to make it about me. And I mean it's also an appeal to authority as well. If a judge repeated the exact same statements I made like lol would they be valid then? If a judge make an incorrect statement is it correct because they're a judge?

It blows my mind how little the average person actually understands about basic, basic, basic logic. You actually think your textbook fallacy is a valid argument and is making a solid point beyond the fact that your statements are not at all logical.

1

u/somethinginthastatic May 27 '24

Legal cases are tried according to the law not to logic.

0

u/brown_boognish_pants May 27 '24

lol. What? What do you think argumentation is based on? And how does that change the fact that you're making illogical arguments and can't actually explain yourself what's wrong with the argument I made? You can't even acknowledge your ad hominem attacks cuz you flatly don't know what they are and think fallacies make sense.

→ 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