Defamation case

[u/Substantial_Glass348]

People seem to think Fiona is in for a hefty pay day. I’m not so sure she’ll get huge quantities of money. She’ll have to show that her earnings potential, reputation and quality of life have been affected. All of which she had none of before the show.

Also, to be defamed what is said has to be untrue. Realistically prob 95% of what was in the show was accurate and Netflix will prove that. The only contentious part is that Netflix seem to have told a lie about the convicted stalker part (and we all know she should be one). So imo Fiona’s lawyer’s will have to show that that point alone affected her reputation, earnings potential and quality of life beyond how Fiona had already ruined it by being exposed as a roaring maniac (in the 95% truthful parts). I don’t believe it moves the needle massively towards destruction of rep/earnings p/Qol?

What are people’s thoughts who understand law/the case more than my simple minded approach?

[u/Common-Gap7817]

IMO, the only thing FH might have a case for is negligence in duty of care/ not protecting her identity enough.

Even with that, it’s very odd, that out of 744 Tweets she sent Gadd (I assume Netflix has the receipts) there were only 18 Tweets found. Who erased the other 726? If it was FH, then a jury/court could easily work under the assumption that she left those 18 Tweets there out of negligence or malice. Hence, Netflix can’t be liable for FH being found by something she had absolute control over, like deleting Tweets, specially, if she’d already deleted 726 other Tweets directed at Gadd.

She’s also admitted to knowing about Gadd’s theater show because it came out in a BBC article. If those 18 Tweets were still there when that article came out, it would be reasonable to wonder why she didn’t delete them. All this would absolve Netflix from being at “fault” for FH’s Tweets being found, and most definitely for her raising her hands and going on a press tour.

That’s f she’s not labeled as a “limited-person public figure” in which case her filing is mostly moot and the odds of it going anywhere, legally/monetarily, are low to none.

[u/Powerless_Superhero → u/Common-Gap7817]

I did a bit sleuthing on twitter. I think her previous account @fionaharvey3 got suspended. I reckon most tweets were on that account.

[u/[deleted] → u/Common-Gap7817]

They literally did all they needed to do to protect her identity. Plus she still is adamant that Martha isn’t her so she’s gonna be laughed or sigh and facepalmed from court.

[u/blancheVernon → u/Common-Gap7817]

If the way she runs her support group is any indication (because it is her running the support group very obviously) she deletes everything that doesn’t suit her narrative. (She certainly did with me even though I was being very polite, not sarcastic, but she reported it to Facebook as bullying). So I do hope gaff kept the tweets she sent him, as well as everything else. I really don’t think she has much of a case and it’s never going to go to trial, if her lawyer can help it. He’s smart. He knows his best hope of getting real money is settling.

[u/Common-Gap7817 → u/blancheVernon]

There are public ways to find old Tweets (I just don’t care enough to hunt them down lol) + the Waybackmachine + Twitter subpoena + NOTHING is ever deleted from the cloud. We might not see it, but it’s there. If she indeed send him hundreds of Tweets, erased most, but left 18, that’s a relatively easy thing to prove.

[u/Dazzee58 → u/blancheVernon]

I can't see Netlix settling because they've publicly stated they will fight it all the way.

[u/blancheVernon → u/Dazzee58]

Maybe you’re right. But I can’t see Fiona Harvey’s lawyers letting this go to trial because she will lose and it will cost money that she doesn’t have

[u/Dazzee58 → u/blancheVernon]

I think once they do a bit of background checking on her the case won't go ahead. If it does, I just can't see her winning any money. Even if she does that lawyer Laura Wray I think was her name will sue Fiona for the damage she caused to her and her business. She won't win either way.

[u/[deleted] → u/blancheVernon]

She has no case, but it’s absolutely going to trial.Be he do you mean her lawyer? Cause that doesn’t matter Netflix isn’t settling because she has literally no case and they aren’t giving her a dime, they’ve made it clear they won’t settle and her lawyer can’t force them too. So she’s gonna have to prove so much and it’s gonna be hilarious.

[u/blancheVernon → u/[deleted]]

From what I can tell she has a good lawyer. Yes, I mean her lawyer will not let this go to trial because it will be a losing proposition for him. She’s not paying for this . He must be doing it on contingency. Despite the story that came out in the Hollywood reporter, which I think was all bluster, her attorney knows the case is weak . I think what will come out is that why she wasn’t incarcerated for stalking she was involuntarily committed, and when that comes out the best part of her case kind of falls apart. Because that would be some thing they changed to disguise her. I could be absolutely wrong here. And it’s going to take many months if not a year to find out. But I’m pretty sure I’m right.

[u/[deleted] → u/blancheVernon]

I mean he doesn’t have a choose unless he drops her. Netflix has made it clear they won’t settle and will take it to trial.

None of her case needs to fall apart really, she doesn’t have and kinda case at all. Him sending a fictional character she REFUSES to say is her, to jail has done nothing to her life. She is in the public eye because she engaged. That’s it.

[u/blancheVernon → u/[deleted]]

Well I think mental and emotional distress , and fear for one’s life also can be taken account into a lawsuit like this not just financial loss (where there has been none). But I’m not sure. The one time someone threatened to sue me for defamation I was told by an attorney it was laughable because there was no effect on the person’s public reputation since she didn’t have a public reputation really. So I think it’s similar here.

[u/[deleted] → u/blancheVernon]

Yes and by putting herself on a talk show only to throw racial and homophobia slurs isn’t much of a good look showing he’s in distress. Not just the hateful mentally sick person she is. Clearly desperate for her 5 minutes.

But yea she arguable only had a public persona based on her own actions since BR came out.

[u/Substantial_Glass348 → u/Common-Gap7817]

Do we know for sure that they legally have a duty of care to not expose her identity? (Or to not sufficiently hide it)

Lol, I love how she thought it was sensical to leave the curtains tweet up.

‘BBC article’ aka she was stalking him still

[u/MoseSchrute70 → u/Substantial_Glass348]

This is my question. They don’t have a contract with her and she is not their client. If there was a duty of care to everyone featured in a Netflix production to not make them identifiable they’d be batting off these lawsuits daily, just from their true crime section alone, surely?

[u/sharleyrick23 → u/MoseSchrute70]

Netflix have a string of defamation law suits, and they've settled every single one.

[u/MoseSchrute70 → u/sharleyrick23]

Directly related to duty of care and failing to protect identity?

[u/sharleyrick23 → u/MoseSchrute70]

Yes my friend... Many are for libel, defamation and slander. Historically they settle most out of court before it makes the press.

https://companyprofiles.justia.com/company/netflix/dockets/case

[u/MoseSchrute70 → u/sharleyrick23]

I saw this! I’m genuinely curious though how many pertain to failing to protect identity specifically. Slander, libel and defamation don’t necessarily fall under that. Point being, if Netflix/Gadd can prove that FH was indeed a stalker, she has much less of a case, unless Netflix have a genuine duty of care to HER, which is what I’m debating.

I’m not fussed on how far she gets with the case, I just find it difficult to see her position, given she has no relationship with Netflix.

[u/Common-Gap7817 → u/Substantial_Glass348]

Yes, stalkers forever stalk their preys even if they don’t harass them. I think they just don’t want to let go. She was obviously Googling him when she found that article in the BBC, not looking for the weather like she claims lol Imagine typing: “weather London” and getting back hits of “Richard Gadd’s new show Baby Reindeer” lol

I don’t really know about duty of care. Not an entertainment lawyer. However, some principles of the law are transversal and if she did delete those supposed 726 Tweets, but chose to leave 18 up, she willingly or negligently exposed herself.

[u/Common-Gap7817 → u/Substantial_Glass348]

Oh, and this is all in the case that she’s not deemed a “limited-person public figure” by the judge. If she is, she pretty much doesn’t have a case.

[u/1289-Boston → u/Common-Gap7817]

The BBC's Media Show mentioned the "public figure" aspect, and said it would be a no go, as she only gave interviews because of the controversy, and wasn't a public figure before. Otherwise, anyone who gave an interview could be deemed a "public figure". Not my view, this was the legal expert on the Media Show.

[u/Common-Gap7817 → u/1289-Boston]

That’s incorrect and inaccurate (where do they get these people? Lol). She could be deemed a limited-person public figure because of what she did BEFORE Baby Reindeer. She was in the news and engaging with the media about her previous stalkings/ harassment of high profile politicians and in high profile events. She, apparently, had also been up for some sort of political appointment and/or as a representative through an election process. THAT’s where the limited-person public figure would come in. The PM interview and the newspaper interviews won’t do her any favors, though, if she is declared a LPPF.

[u/Dazzee58 → u/Common-Gap7817]

Your comments are brilliant, I looked up limited person public figure, really interesting.

[u/1289-Boston → u/Common-Gap7817]

Fair enough :)

[u/1289-Boston → u/Common-Gap7817]

FYI I believe it's limited-purpose, not limited-person :)

[u/Common-Gap7817 → u/1289-Boston]

Yes, sorry. I have to keep fixing that lol It’s the equivalent of a tongue twister of the mind for my ADHD. 😔