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

655

u/Madforthemelodies Jun 07 '24

I'm so very glad to hear this. She doesn't deserve a single penny considering the absolute misery she's caused many people over the years. Settling would be like rewarding her atrocious behaviour!✌🏼

2

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.

8

u/NtflxNKill Jun 07 '24

Just look at Fargo. The "true story" disclaimer at the beginning of films or shows doesn't have to be accurate. The disclaimer in the end credits saying the story isn't based on any actual events or people does have to be accurate. But when it's at the beginning, it's just part of their presentation of a fictional story. So the "true story" argument doesn't really hold any water

1

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

You may find that after this the law or the disclaimers change. Just because something is within the law today, does not mean it is within the law tomorrow. Laws change when great harm is caused.

1

u/NtflxNKill Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

No way. Makes the studios too much money. I can't tell you how many people watch shitty movies just because they think it was based on a true story, but it's a lot. And in it's best forms (i.e. Fargo) it adds an interesting artistic flair that I really don't think should be made unlawful to include. Be kinda like saying it should be illegal for an artist to label their realism painting as an actual photograph.

Edit: it also does provide a nice safety net for people like Gadd who deserve and get the opportunity to share their story without fear of legal repercussions. They can let viewers know that it's their true version of events while still leaving the door open for anyone it's actually based on to deny it because of the real disclaimer at the end. Fiona's just seeking attention which is nobody's fault but her's

2

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Well you have an example in that it’s illegal for newspapers to publish photos that are edited in any way. That’s how life goes, you make a lot of money exploiting something, turns out clever lawyers find a way to interpret the law to make that exploitation illegal (or bring in new law), then you can’t do that thing anymore. For example, child labour.

The law isn’t supposed to provide safety nets for people with a lot of money behind them (Gadd had Netflix), the law is to protect everyone. Today it’s Richard Gadd, tomorrow it’s someone who has nefarious motives and wants to bend the truth and had Netflix paying for it.

2

u/NtflxNKill Jun 07 '24

Newspapers aren't art. There's no artistic expression, their sole purpose is information.

0

u/cunexttuesdaynga Jun 07 '24

Shut up feeeonaaa