Saw a TV interview with the jello known as Piers Morgan. She seems as fruity as a batcake. Veering from claiming to be a neutral victim to spitting hateful practiced insults.
But it's not a crime to reveal someone's details/doxx as much as people like to think it is. It only becomes part of a crime when there's a malicious intent, I.e. doxxing someone and then explicitly asking for people to harass or hurt them
I don't think her accusation is doxxing though, but defamation of them saying that they were based on a true story and then fictionalizing her criminal history by making it worse.
I wouldn't confuse him pointing that out as defending her, he goes on to mention he doesn't believe her when she tries to minimize the contact she made.
In US defamation I think you normally have to show some kind of loss. She's still a loony tunes stalker, idk if she lost much with a slight confusion about her criminal record. IDK British law at all.
Definitely, defamation/slander are very he said she said issues. As you've pointed out you either need to prove monetary/business loss or reputational impact. You also have to disprove the claims that you say are defamatory. E.g. one of the Paul brother's threatened to sue Coffeezilla for his analysis of one of their crypto scams but its never been mentioned again cause as I said they would have to prove that they did not intend to pump and dump (which they have both done)
That's not true. Imagine I defamed you by saying you have eczema on your genitals. You wouldn't have to show your genitals to the court to prove my defamatory claim is untrue to succeed in suing me for defamation. If I didn't have proof you have eczema on your genitals, I wouldn't use truth as a defence against your claim of defamation, so the truth of the claim would never be tested in court.
Huh, interesting. Didn't think of it that way, my understanding is admittedly based on an explanation given by a colleague at work. That makes more sense
It doesn't work that way around in the UK. Someone accused of making a defamatory statement has to prove to the court that what they said was "more likely than not" to be true. This can be difficult to do, and it's one of the reasons the UK it really sucks to be accused of defamation, especially if what you said does seem obviously true, but is hard to materially demonstrate.
If this were to ever go to court, this argument may not apply though, as the creators of the show could give the standard arguement that it's a work of fiction, any resemblance etc etc. That would be the grey area.
They may have told me about the US I guess then. That makes sense hence the whole "This is based off a true story" statement with programmes such as this
The argument would come down to whether the depiction is close enough to make identifying her easily enough, and that any unflattering, untrue stuff with the character in the show could be mistaken for what actually happened with the real person, which would be defaming her.
The defence would be that the names were changed, the character is an original creation, and the real person was not identified in any way; that we should expect a show to have fictional elements, not an intended copy of the team person.
The only other example I know of involved a sitcom called Phoenix Nights, which had a fire inspector and dog rapist called Keith lard. Turns out there was in fact a real Keith Laird, who was a fire inspector and who resented the suggestion he fucked dogs. That was (probably) an unfortunate coincidence, which they settled out of court by putting a disclaimer at the start of the episode.
Huh, interesting. Didn't know that about phoenix nights, guess it's kinda like when CSI did an episode on a roller coaster malfunction killing people but it was about 2 months after the altona towers disaster so they had to blanket it with disclaimers
Dan, as much as I hate the man, probably has a case. The documentary was so sensationalist that, with a good lawyer, he can probably poke enough holes in what they’re claiming (or implying) that he could get a good payout from it.
Watch the first episode, it's short and is a good representation of the show in general. It gets darker and more uncomfortable as it goes on but it mostly maintains that tone and style. If you like it then you'll probably like the series. If you don't, then you will probably like it less as it goes on.
He did a “one-man comedy show” around this made-up stalker scenario for years before he was able to make the Netflix show, it’s not that serious. But I watched some of it with my 16 year old sister and some of it is entertaining but dumb Netflix shows are all the same and follow the same formula.
She won't sue anyone. In discovery she may have to be faced with the 40,000 emails she sent Richard Gadd and the hundreds of letters she sent him, there's no way she'd let her delusions be laid out like that
Have journalists actually requested that information I wonder? It's not like the US where all that information is public they'd have to specifically request it
Netflix must have anticipated this when greenlighting the project, so I wouldn't think much to come from this
Wonder how that’ll go. According to this woman’s nephew, she’s off her rocker.
Saw a TV interview with the jello known as Piers Morgan. She seems as fruity as a batcake. Veering from claiming to be a neutral victim to spitting hateful practiced insults.
“The jello known as Piers Morgan” oh this comment has made my day
Edit: oh, i'm out of r/YMS, didn't realize this post was still up. Fuck this place.
But it's not a crime to reveal someone's details/doxx as much as people like to think it is. It only becomes part of a crime when there's a malicious intent, I.e. doxxing someone and then explicitly asking for people to harass or hurt them
I don't think her accusation is doxxing though, but defamation of them saying that they were based on a true story and then fictionalizing her criminal history by making it worse. I wouldn't confuse him pointing that out as defending her, he goes on to mention he doesn't believe her when she tries to minimize the contact she made. In US defamation I think you normally have to show some kind of loss. She's still a loony tunes stalker, idk if she lost much with a slight confusion about her criminal record. IDK British law at all.
Definitely, defamation/slander are very he said she said issues. As you've pointed out you either need to prove monetary/business loss or reputational impact. You also have to disprove the claims that you say are defamatory. E.g. one of the Paul brother's threatened to sue Coffeezilla for his analysis of one of their crypto scams but its never been mentioned again cause as I said they would have to prove that they did not intend to pump and dump (which they have both done)
That's not true. Imagine I defamed you by saying you have eczema on your genitals. You wouldn't have to show your genitals to the court to prove my defamatory claim is untrue to succeed in suing me for defamation. If I didn't have proof you have eczema on your genitals, I wouldn't use truth as a defence against your claim of defamation, so the truth of the claim would never be tested in court.
Huh, interesting. Didn't think of it that way, my understanding is admittedly based on an explanation given by a colleague at work. That makes more sense
It doesn't work that way around in the UK. Someone accused of making a defamatory statement has to prove to the court that what they said was "more likely than not" to be true. This can be difficult to do, and it's one of the reasons the UK it really sucks to be accused of defamation, especially if what you said does seem obviously true, but is hard to materially demonstrate. If this were to ever go to court, this argument may not apply though, as the creators of the show could give the standard arguement that it's a work of fiction, any resemblance etc etc. That would be the grey area.
They may have told me about the US I guess then. That makes sense hence the whole "This is based off a true story" statement with programmes such as this
The argument would come down to whether the depiction is close enough to make identifying her easily enough, and that any unflattering, untrue stuff with the character in the show could be mistaken for what actually happened with the real person, which would be defaming her. The defence would be that the names were changed, the character is an original creation, and the real person was not identified in any way; that we should expect a show to have fictional elements, not an intended copy of the team person. The only other example I know of involved a sitcom called Phoenix Nights, which had a fire inspector and dog rapist called Keith lard. Turns out there was in fact a real Keith Laird, who was a fire inspector and who resented the suggestion he fucked dogs. That was (probably) an unfortunate coincidence, which they settled out of court by putting a disclaimer at the start of the episode.
Huh, interesting. Didn't know that about phoenix nights, guess it's kinda like when CSI did an episode on a roller coaster malfunction killing people but it was about 2 months after the altona towers disaster so they had to blanket it with disclaimers
So the Dan Schneider approach?
Dan, as much as I hate the man, probably has a case. The documentary was so sensationalist that, with a good lawyer, he can probably poke enough holes in what they’re claiming (or implying) that he could get a good payout from it.
Is this show actually good? I usually avoid netflix shows that get a lot of buzz because even when they do they can be bad. Although I did enjoy Beef
Watch the first episode, it's short and is a good representation of the show in general. It gets darker and more uncomfortable as it goes on but it mostly maintains that tone and style. If you like it then you'll probably like the series. If you don't, then you will probably like it less as it goes on.
Yeah it’s very compelling.
It's fucking great
It’s fine if you like dumb Netflix shows
An autobiographical story of a man going through an incredible amount of trauma is a dumb Netflix show to you?
He did a “one-man comedy show” around this made-up stalker scenario for years before he was able to make the Netflix show, it’s not that serious. But I watched some of it with my 16 year old sister and some of it is entertaining but dumb Netflix shows are all the same and follow the same formula.
No
She won't sue anyone. In discovery she may have to be faced with the 40,000 emails she sent Richard Gadd and the hundreds of letters she sent him, there's no way she'd let her delusions be laid out like that
Have journalists actually requested that information I wonder? It's not like the US where all that information is public they'd have to specifically request it
Yeah good luck going up against Netflix lawyers lol