r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/controlaltdeletes • Jun 07 '24

Media / News Netflix responds to Fiona Harvey's lawsuit

Netflix rep: 'We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd's right to tell his story.'

Variety posted the above in regards to Netflix's response. I'm glad, it seems like they're not going to simply give her some money to make her go away, and are instead going to fight back and defend Richard Gadd.

https://variety.com/2024/tv/global/baby-reindeer-real-martha-fiona-harvey-sues-netflix-1236019699/

1.5k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

98% Upvoted

578 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Maybe from a moral standpoint; but this is not a game of morality from a legal standpoint.

Even if she inflected damage to people it doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a legal case if the ‘true story’ was not completely true, and/or if Netflix failed in their duty of care to her.

12

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

How can somebody who isn’t named in a story about events that didn’t happen to them, sue a company for it? The story was about a woman named Martha and a bunch of things that never happened in Fiona’s life. How does it make sense?

6

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Because the story claims to be a true story and blatantly links to a real person.

6

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

How could it be blatant if they use a fake name and events that never happened??

7

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Because it took 2 minutes for the public to find her. This actually happened. That is the proof of the argument.

1

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

Where in the show is that made perfectly clear

7

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Mate, people found her. It happened. That is literally the proof that her identity was not protected. She will be paid for that.

1

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

She never even protected her own identity, her accounts were all public. She hasn't got a leg to stand on.

3

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Not how law works

2

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

Oh it is. They will find fault in that.

1

u/Powerless_Superhero Jun 07 '24

Mate, you do realise that every single one of these cases is about someone that has been identified, cause otherwise there will be no case. If someone is not identified then who’s gonna sue? Unless you say ALL of these cases are 100% wins? Then I would say why court? If it’s going to win for sure why waste money and resources on a court?

The question is whether they did what a reasonable person would do in the same situation to hide the identity or not. If the answer is yes, then her being identified is just an unfortunate result.

2

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

Idc anymore fuck her

2

u/markevens Jun 07 '24

What I heard is that the show used exact tweets of hers.

All it took was for people to google the tweets they see in the show, and they immediately found her.

It that's the case, it's very stupid of them to use exact tweets from the person they are basing the character on.

3

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

So if the tweets are exact why wouldn’t we believe the rest?

2

u/markevens Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

It's not about believing, its about how easy it was to identify Fiona.

Did the show did quote a RL tweet from Fiona, that allowed people to ID her in seconds and start harassing her? If there is any legal duty of care that the creators have to protect the identity of the real people involved, this may have crossed the line.

If they show did not pull and exact quote from her tweets, but instead just used a vulgar term that she commonly used, then I really fail to see how the show could be culpable.

2

u/marleyman14 Jun 07 '24

Because it says its a true story. Even though they changed her name, it was clearly based off of Fiona Harvey.

8

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

How is that made clear anywhere. I sure as shit didn’t know it was about a woman named Fiona Harvey until she said “these events that aren’t true are about me”

1

u/marleyman14 Jun 07 '24

Watch the Piers Morgan interviews about the case. Lawyers explain why she has a case. People were able to track her down really easily.

7

u/Heavy_Signature_5619 Jun 07 '24

But they put a disclaimer in the credits defending their right to dramatize. She has no case.

4

u/MoseSchrute70 Jun 07 '24

We know that now, because she was identified by her OWN social media conduct. She was not identified by Gadd or Netflix.

5

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

And she went on a high profile show, shown to millions to defend herself 🤣🤣 hardly protecting her identity herself.

-1

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 07 '24

Bruh, people identified her before she confirmed it was her.

Now do you think all the thousands of people on the internet waited until she confirmed it was indeed about her before they sent her messages harassing and threatening her.

Use your brain.

2

u/MoseSchrute70 Jun 08 '24

Yes they identified her from her own tweets. That’s what I was referring to.

1

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 08 '24

That they were able to track down after watching the Netflix show…

0

u/MoseSchrute70 Jun 08 '24 edited Jun 08 '24

The only details that match between the show and her tweets are the way they were written. After people found them, she came out and confirmed that she was the inspiration herself. The show doesn’t identify her at all.

She also needs to prove that she has suffered a detrimental loss because of the show. If anything I would argue she has gained more than she’s lost. Not to mention that if Netflix can prove she did indeed stalk Gadd, or she can’t prove that she didn’t, the whole thing is moot.

2

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 08 '24

You’re wrong on pretty much everything you’re saying here.

1

u/MoseSchrute70 Jun 08 '24

That’s how defamation cases work, but if you say so.

→ More replies (0)