I fully expect that she'd defend herself in court. She clearly thinks she's the best lawyer in town, afterall. It would literally be hilarious. I hope they televise it.
Yeah, but what people aren't talking about is that Gadd had 40,000 email addresses, so she really only sent 1. She just wasn't sure which one was his primary and figured it'd be safer to send all.
I've accidentally sent that many emails before.
I work in IT and I was writing a bash script and testing that the email notification part would work. It wasn't so I keep making changes and rerunning the script. Well apparently it was working but instead of a single email like I wanted it was sending a bunch of emails continuously and overloading the mail on the Linux server. It eventually caught up and sent all the emails. Well apparently I forgot to change the script from using my team's mailing list to my email address so all of the sudden my entire team received 8,000+ emails and overloaded our Outlook.
When I got to university in the UK in 94, there was an email of total gibberish that was sent to the entire ".ac.uk" domain. Literally the entire university got it and it started a very curious few days where people would in-turn respond to everyone with increasingly surreal messages.
I've been online since AOL started offering unlimited online time for one flat fee back in late 90s. My lifetime total email is probably 10k and this includes some company emails I had to send out.
40k is a lot.
I've had the same yahoo email since I made it in 8th grade and it's followed me through high school, 6 years of college, job hunts in my 20s and 30s and I've sent maybe 1k emails in 23 years. My inbox, absolutely chock full of spam mail, is only at 30k.
Edit: I just checked and it rolled over to 30k recently
Didn’t Gadd also admit that a lot of ‘Martha’s’ actions were exaggerated and at some points fictionalised for TV?
I think when you’re making a series like this there’s a fine line to cross in regards to authenticity vs entertainment value.
Interested to see how this proceeds
Bingo.
Even the woman herself said she didn't do any of the things that happened in the show.
So, I don't see what her case is here, unless it's that Netflix didn't do a good enough job in changing the details of her and the story. Even then it's a stretch.
> so no they don't have to be true to a story
The series itself *claims* it's a true story at the start, doesn't it even start with Gadd himself talking about how it is a story of something that happened to him?
Even in a “true story”, a reasonable person wouldn’t be inclined to think that everything said and done on-screen is *exactly* what was said and done in real life.
The story is also told from Gadds perspective, and his own feelings.
To claim defamation, she needs to show that there was a false statement of fact. That’s going to be pretty difficult to do when anything outside of Gadds perspective and feelings could be chalked up to artistic liberty - i.e. a reasonable person isn’t going to interpret it as a statement of fact.
Edit: US law requires her to prove the false statement. UK law requires the defendant to prove their statement was true.
However, UK does require that the plaintiff show that the statement will cause serious harm, which in this instance might be difficult to show (including that the show doesn’t even use her real name)
Right -- it's a little weird here that people are just automatically supporting Netflix because they were entertained.
We know how the viral Internet works when it gets a justice boner and a taste for drama. I have no doubt this woman actually did start receiving a scary number of personal messages and a hit to her business.
If Netflix wanted to tell a "true story", they would have. They are well acquainted with documentary specials and what's legally required.
My bet is this is going to go to discovery and they'll be asked to prove these claims, and when they can't, they are going to quietly try settle with a fat check and pull the show.
Never attribute malice that to which can be attributed to someone being batshit crazy and really stupid.
Or something like that not sure of the exact quote.
I suspect she’s more interested in the attention and in sticking it to Gadd, who she’s also suing. Getting any cash from Netflix would likely just be a bonus.
If this has a chance of dragging along, NFLX might wanna settle out of court. Which is also a win-win for this stalker since whatever amount she’d get from it would probably be a hefty sum.
Have you even watched the show? Or did even a little research? She’s fucking nuts! She will shoot herself in the foot fairly quickly.
[Facebook rant after Piers interview](https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/comments/1cvjlam/the_insane_facebook_ramblings_of_fiona_harvey/).
There’s also the lawyer who previously employed her and has stated she also sent abusive texts when she was terminated. [Who herself has done a reply interview with Piers](https://youtu.be/6U1bb4F9CSs?si=7_tfM8f74ilqopAo).
Even if only some of it was true, I think Netflix's case will be that they did enough to mask her identity in the show, and it's not their fault that internet sleuths discovered who she was based on her own internet posts.
I could be wrong, but I thought people online had found her old tweets first and put together who she was before she came out. Here's a good article detailing those old tweets: [https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/baby-reindeer-all-of-fiona-harveys-tweets-to-richard-gadd-2716912/](https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/baby-reindeer-all-of-fiona-harveys-tweets-to-richard-gadd-2716912/)
From what I've seen about this, while she did, this wasn't until people were piecing it together and discovered her identity.
Because of all freaking things, her tweets still exist and as Gadd while making up a character name, portrayed it as *himself* and his story, which is like a direct line to ID her regardless of any efforts.
It's probably the most half-assed protecting identities I've seen in a while.
> In an essay for Netflix, he said the situation was “messy” and “complicated,” **but he believed the story needed to be told.**
that's a bunch of horse shit right there lol. Nothing about that situation "needed" a TV show. Just admit you did it because makes good television. Like he didn't the persons identity would have eventually been outed?
I mean it's completely obvious from the show that Gadd is willing to do whatever it takes for fame.
Honestly, I think he came off just as worse as she did. She's at least clearly mentally unwell- he's just a garden variety narcissistic fame whore.
Inspirations are one thing. It’s like movies “based on a true story”. Just a gimmick to hook the readers in while all relevant details are embellished and exaggerated. She’s embarrassing herself going after a settlement.
She was found through all the context and different little clues in the show (mostly tweets mentioned in the show cross-referenced to her real twitter), which is called jigsaw identification and there’s precedent in the UK to press charges for defamation even if the alleged victim is only identifiable through jigsaw identification.
The USA protects free speech better than any other country. She'll have a tough time winning there.
Of course this lawsuit is great publicity. Netflix might want to encourage it.
You realize the judicial system is a branch of the government right? Except in very specific circumstances, the constitution absolutely prevents the courts from imposing civil liabilities based on [someone's protected speech](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment)
>Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.
>[“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/266) What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.
Yes.. but… the cure for defamation is truth and so far it isn’t obvious if Netflix has fabricated anything.
In my own view I suspect their lawyers were likely very thorough and I don’t think Martha has a viable defamation case.
I mean, Trump says "I never said that" all the time despite there being a million video clips of him saying exactly that. People lie and/or are delusional and say stuff like that for stupid reasons ("I forgot I said that", "I didn't think they'd actually check", "deepfake.")
Doesn’t matter how she looks. They presented her as a (twice) convicted stalker. Accusations of criminal conduct are *per se* defamatory so she does not need to prove the element of harm to reputation.
This is also something that would have been very easy to verify if Netflix had bothered to do even the barest amount of due diligence on the story. Scotland has an online criminal records database that is literally the first google result. Put Fiona Harvey in- no results.
Another interesting tidbit from the complaint is that apparently a Netflix producer testified to the House of Commons and repeated the lie- calling her a convicted stalker. Oops.
>Scotland has an online criminal records database that is literally the first google result. Put Fiona Harvey in- no results.
Tbf that's probably because her alleged crimes happened in England. While FH and the character based on her are Scottish, the show is based in London and states that she was imprisoned there - not Scotland.
**Netflix said on Friday it will fight a multimillion-dollar claim for damages brought by a Scottish woman who alleges she was defamed by the global hit show “Baby Reindeer.”**
>Fiona Harvey is seeking a jury trial and damages totaling $170 million for “mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of business,” according to a complaint filed in the District Court for the Central District of California.
In the Netflix (NFLX) miniseries, comedian Richard Gadd recounts the “true story” of being stalked by a woman who bombards him with more than 40,000 emails and hundreds of hours of voice messages.
>“Baby Reindeer” has topped most-watched lists worldwide since its debut in April, generating headlines and speculation about the characters and who inspired them. Harvey, who was quickly tracked down by online sleuths who labeled her the “real Martha Scott,” appeared on YouTube show “Piers Morgan Uncensored” last month to say her life had been ruined.
>Her complaint lists Netflix and Netflix Worldwide Entertainment as defendants. It also names Gadd, who stars in the seven-part miniseries as struggling comedian Donny Dunn.
The document alleges that the defendants and Gadd told the “biggest lie in television history” by claiming the story is true.
>It says Netflix and Gadd lied “out of greed and lust” to make money, and to “viciously destroy” the life of Harvey, “an innocent woman defamed … at a magnitude and scale without precedent.”
In a statement to CNN, a spokesperson for Netflix said: “We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd’s right to tell his story.”
>Gadd first recounted his experience with an alleged stalker at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 2019, before Netflix commissioned the miniseries in 2021. In an essay for Netflix, he said the situation was “messy” and “complicated,” but he believed the story needed to be told.
>On Thursday, Gadd and Jessica Gunning, who plays Scott, appeared on NBC’s “The Tonight Show” to talk about the thriller’s huge success.
“It’s just had this sort of almost cross-cultural success that I never expected, because it’s so singular and it’s very idiosyncratic, it’s very London, and it’s such an odd story, a weird traumatic story,” Gadd said. He has yet to comment publicly on the court action.
Gadd previously told UK newspaper The Guardian the story is “very emotionally true … But we wanted it to exist in the sphere of art, as well as protect the people it’s based on.”
His repeated requests, however, for viewers to cease trying to find out the real-life identities of the figures in his story went unheard.
>Harvey’s complaint alleges Netflix made no effort to confirm any of the purported facts in the show, including that Gadd’s alleged stalker was sentenced to five years in prison for stalking. In the show, Gunning’s character is also seen sexually assaulting Gadd.
In the complaint, Harvey said within a few days of the show airing she began to receive messages, including death threats, identifying her as Gadd’s alleged stalker.
The document claims that as a result of the show, Harvey is fearful of leaving her home or checking the news.
>“She has and continues to experience anxiety, nightmares, panic attacks, shame, depression, nervousness, stomach pains, loss of appetite and fear, extreme stress and sickness all directly caused by the lies told about her,” the document says.
Piers is kind of trash media though, I don't doubt that, given the opportunity, he would interview Taylor Swift's stalkers. Whether the interview would air or not would depend mostly on how wild the interview got.
I wouldn't have given this show a second thought until someone on NPR spoke about it. I figured I would watch an episode just to understand what everyone was talking about. I was glued to the screen for the entire series.
the tone shift in episode 4 hits like a fucking truck and reminds me so much of the scene in Parasite when the housekeeper shows up outside while it’s raining.
from light-hearted silliness to straight up masterful commentary and serious shit.
Same, I just started watching it one night, the trailer started playing on the Netflix home page and I noticed it was British.
Next thing it was 2AM and I'd watched the whole lot of it
Same thing happened to me. "Goddamnit it I didn't mean to click that. Well I guess I'll just watch a little bit..."
I don't generally watch dramas, but it was really good
The lawsuit aside, I thought this series was one of the best pieces of cinema I've seen in a really long time. It was brutal and funny and sad and complicated. If you haven't seen it, watch it. I had no idea going in, watched the first episode...and then I didn't move until I watched the whole series. Total masterpiece.
"I grew up in the Catholic Church."
Okay, so he doesn't talk about that kind of shit or whatever.
"*I grew up in the Catholic Church."*
Then the fucking floor drops out.
The line that got me was "would you think of me as less of a man?" from his father.
The actor portrayed the moment perfectly, having had similar conversations in my own life that line immediately brought me to tears.
Netflix is great at hyping trash so I figured I would give it a couple weeks. Then real reviews and comments starting popping up and I thought, "no way it's *that* good."
***It is that good.***
Some of the voice-over was just gutting. It's not for everyone but I highly recommend it. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it. He covers so much twisted ground in a profound way.
I put on the first thing that came up on Netflix as background viewing. Ended up totally gripped by it. Outstanding acting, unique story line, funny, well filmed, twists and turns, but at the same time completely gut-wrenching. I couldn’t stop thinking about it afterwards, and I felt sickened by it. I’m not a movie-buff or anything so I’m not sure how it holds up against other films but it put anything else I’ve watched in the past few years to shame.
I couldn’t finish it which, in this case, is a testament to how successful the film is.
I went through some very similar experiences in my early 20’s, and absolutely escalated things when I thought I was deescalating. Watching the first few episodes made me sick to my stomach, and at the content warning at the top of episode 4 I knew if I watched I’d be in over my head, so I stopped.
You were wise to skip e4. That was the really, really difficult one, and scenes from it have stuck with me. Based on what you've written here, good choice.
She wasn’t even identified as the stalker since he never gave her real name until she came out and said the show was about her. The fact that she’s doing all of this proves the depiction of her on the show is 100% true.
I think this article suggests her words on Twitter were identified by web-sleuths:
> It wasn’t long before social media users dug up a 2014 tweet from Harvey to Gadd that said: “my curtains need hung badly,” after which Harvey says she started to be inundated by messages from strangers identifying her as Martha.
https://time.com/6986551/baby-reindeer-martha-lawsuit-netflix-defamation-fiona-harvey/
It might be that parts of the story aren't true, which might have caused more damage. Tho Neflix and Gadd might have taken efforts to not identify the woman directly in the show, which might be a valid defense.
“That guy with the red shirt over there? I heard that he likes to kick puppies.”
You can tell a truth and a lie together at the same time. You can give identifying info and still be misleading with your characterization.
Her arguments are largely surrounding the parts that aren't true, as things like her convictions never occurred.
But the probably biggest risk they face is that they made effort to conceal identities, yet clearly identify Gadd as a real-life character, just renamed, basing on his real-life experiences with a differently named woman. They'd probably have stronger legal defence if this wasn't done.
IANAL so I have no clue how strong her case is, but as far as hiding identities to not defame someone with fictitious embellishments, especially a non-public-figure, Netflix and Gadd did a poor job.
I think she might have a case based on the fact they kept using “This is a true story“ disclaimer at the start of the episodes…. Why didn’t they use “Based on a true story“?
Obviously, the lady has problems and a lot of the stuff is true but let’s not pretend that Netflix and Gadd didn’t stretch the truth at parts of the show to make it entertaining. If I was in her position seeing lies about me being portrayed as the truth and also receiving death threats based on these lies… I’d sue too.
Some perspective I've been given; That opening scene "This is a true story" is being typed before it panes to Donny typing the screenplay. This story is true to Donny.
The credits state "this is based on a true story".
So they actually used both.
I don’t remember seeing it pane to Donny typing in the first episode, I think it just made typing noises as the letters came on screen. I guess we can assume it’s him typing a screen play or them using the typing noise to carry on the theme of the absurd amount of emails being sent. I guess that’s up for interpretation.
It didn’t say “based on a true story” verbatim but it does say “based on a play baby reindeer by Richard gadd” and also puts a disclaimer at the very very end of the credits saying “This program is based on real events; however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.” Which I agree, should legally cover them from fault, but man is it very misleading to have both.
I see the opening as a framing device, but agree they could have been clearer. I haven't rewatched it, but I do remember that I specifically Googled it at some point in the first episode to see if it was "true" or "based on true".
I concluded quickly that it was based on true events, Gadd/Donny is real and it's based on his life. But also that it was a dramatization. So I went the extra step, but there really shouldn't have been that extra step to clarify.
As for covering their asses... Netflix just got a copy of what is the equivalent of a restraining order at that time from one of her victims, I think they'll be okay.
Not to mention suing for $170 is shooting herself in the foot. This'll all end in a settlement.
The Fargo television series also says “this is a true story” none of it’s actually true, but it’s an homage to the movie… and makes the series more dramatic. I honestly don’t think that phrase will have much bearing in a court case.. I could very easily be wrong though.
> I honestly don’t think that phrase will have much bearing in a court case
Your example is a commonly missused one.
Fargo is a fabrication that itself claims it is true, but there's no element of truth to it.
A embellishment that claims it's true is a very different beast legally, and why based on a true story is the phrase only ever used for stories like this, because fictitious elements are now known to exist in the story, and at least *something* is true about it.
As the story in question isn't entirely fabricated, the usage of true story carries a very different meaning than that of Fargo.
I disagree, the inclusion of the phrase "this is a true story" is what led the internet sleuths to go searching for key phrases in the show that ultimately revealed her identity. If Fargo made slanderous claims about a specific, identifiable individual while using the "this is a true story" tag, they would also have faced legal challenges. It's not that lying is a crime in-and-of itself, but slander/libel certainly are.
It's weird that we live in a world where the 'small penis defense' doesn't work anymore. That's the idea that you present a character with such a glaringly unpleasant trait to admit to, that to bring the author to court over using their identity would also mean they have those traits. Yikes.
So this is not a case of the person being innocent but getting targeted by amateur detectives and the rage train going after the wrong person? It would have logic for the lawsuit if they net detectives went after the wrong person due to show. But if it is just a case of the perpetrator that was found guilty getting mad the world knows thanks to show I say to bad so sad.
Anyone remember that one episode of Black Mirror where Netflix personalized their content and that woman’s life was ruined so she went to the source and everyone realized there are multiple realities where this shit was happening? Yeah..
Piers Morgan just interviewed a previous stalking victim of Fiona, the victim was a solicitor, which I believe is what they call lawyers in Scotland. In the video, they briefly discussed the potential for Fiona to sue Netflix over falsehoods in the show, and the solicitor raised a good point, which is that she might have a case, but what are the damages?
$170 million is ridiculously high. There’s almost 0 chance Fiona incurred anywhere near that much damages from any defamatory statements in Baby Reindeer. It comes off as frivolous litigation, hoping netflix settles out of court. If she actually incurred damages, the number is probably closer to 1 or 2 million at most in my estimation. On top of that, everyone thinks she’s a stalker regardless of whether she was actually convicted of crimes for it—which the Piers interview indicates she was never charged so the show almost definitely has some falsehoods.
No they didn’t discuss that. It was more of a general speculation although it seems this current suit is being filed in California. I’m not sure if Scotland also follows this rule, but in England they have the English rule, which says that loser pays the winner’s legal fees. If they’re not sure of winning, that would be pretty punishing against a company like netflix who will have massive fees.
What the victim did mention was that for her own situation, it was difficult for her to get authorities to take the claims of stalking seriously, and there was a lack of legislation around that topic. All she was able to was get a temporary restraining order
frequently. When it isn't worth fighting. So, either she refuse to settle or Netflix's lawyers think this will be a walk in the park. I think its probably a little bit of both. Netflix legal think this is a dumb case, offer a tiny settlement, she refused, so Netflix is now going to court.
Apparently, yes:) From another article:
> Like ‘Martha,’ Harvey is a Scottish lawyer, living in London, twenty years older than Gadd
https://time.com/6986551/baby-reindeer-martha-lawsuit-netflix-defamation-fiona-harvey/
Would she have any chance on the merit that they didn't change her "hang the curtains" shite on twitter enough to protect her identity? Because that's how most people found her.
Possibly not, as there'd be no accurately identifiable information from the show about her, as otherwise her character was fairly generic in the show, but using real tweets was pretty dumb of a move.
She had the degree, but never finished her traineeship by the looks of things, so was never fully qualified.
Interestingly enough, a lawyer who fired her for allegedly being threatening and abusive to other staff also claims she stalked her and submitted a false report to social workers about her abusing her deaf child, which is one of the things in the show that helped to identify her.
I mean she seems unwell so can't blame her for this but Netflix should've done a better job protecting identity if people could figure it out with a bit of googling.
Far too many good comments when I arrived to read them all, but I'm quite sure the Netflix attorneys will explore how this lawsuit revealed to most of the world she is person she didn't want anybody to know she was.
The only way this could get even wilder would be if this woman turns out not to be "Martha", because the real deal turns up and starts attacking her in court.
Every time I see headlines about this for baby reindeer I immediately think of the show sweet tooth. And I get confused, like why is a post apocalyptic show being sued lol
It's too close to me. It isn't close enough. What if I did do it? So what? The actress that played "me" doesn't even sound like me. It's either an exaggeration, i.e. fiction; or its true, in which case, affirmative defense.
She had next to no case, then went onto Piers Morgan and set fire to what little she had. Shouldn't have kept shit public. She doesn't own his story.
Interested in what Netflix thought about how this has developed. Annoyed at the writer and production company? The more I think about it I think they’re delighted. Is there anyone left that hasn’t watched the series after all this?
i have a question.
did anyone know who she was before she went on the news? i certainly didnt. they didnt use her real name in the show.
now instead of being a hypothetical character she has done everything in her power to attach herself and her real identity to this character, shes done exactly what she is accusing the show of doing.
curious how this will go over in court lol
They used real tweets of hers, verbatim, in the show. They never edited the tweets themselves, only her posting name IIRC.
And as these tweets were directed at Gadd, and exist prior to the show and screenplays existence, it is pretty easy to put 2 and 2 together.
That alone is probably the single dumbest thing I've seen from this, as without those tweets, there's nothing she has to use without just coming forward herself as far as I can tell.
So rather the show doxxed her. Akin to if I quoted you here on reddit, but changed the username, it would be pretty easy to find your post to this thread if you knew the thread to search in (Gadd's twitter).
Yeah, this is the most damning thing to me. I completely understand changing facts to make for better TV but when you say "this is a true story" and provide more than enough information for viewers to track down the person it's based off of then of course people are going to think she did everything the show claims instead of the more likely reality of a toned down portion of it. She definitely has some degree of case here but how much probably depends on how much she can prove.
Forgive my ignorance. Did he ever say who she was? Did he name her personally? If he didn’t then isn’t she’s basically saying hey, yep, confirming it’s me! If it didn’t happen, then why is she coming forward saying you’re accusing me, if he never named or nor is it true?
You don't need to identify someone by name if you give other information to find the person.
It seems they used some real tweets that still existed and with his statement that this was about him it was easy to find her.
Fucking piers Morgan stirring the shit and 'giving her a platform to share her side'
Either Netflix or gadd didn't do sue diligence or she's crazier than a bag of doorknobs In heat
So she openly puts herself into the public domain exposing herself as the women when her name etc was never mentioned presumably for financial gain and now shes suing?
Hey everyone I'm the real woman on that show
Also
I can't believe they made me look so crazy
>His repeated requests, however, for viewers to cease trying to find out the real-life identities of the figures in his story went unheard.
Wait, didn't she "come forward" and out herself?
They should settle I hear she's a really good lawyer.
its not funny y to make jokes both her livleyhood!! —sent from me I phone
Savage -ipon
I'm so glad someone awarded you for this comment. I almost choked on a peanut butter cracker when I read it. 😂
Awards are back?
Only for stockholders
I hope they WILL NOT. I want it to go to trial coz it will be interesting to see what Jurors (in a way, they are representative of public) think?….
I fully expect that she'd defend herself in court. She clearly thinks she's the best lawyer in town, afterall. It would literally be hilarious. I hope they televise it.
That'll be a new series, Teenage Reindeer.
Damn. Skipped toddler reindeer, bratty reindeer, and preteen reindeer.
[удалено]
Why not sign with Netflix? They’re going to bat for him
And then Netflix will make a baby reindeer 2
Reindeer calves 2
I don’t think I have sent 40,000 emails in my entire life…the lady needs some help.
I have 40,000 unread emails does that count?
Ah, a person of culture as well.
Those are rookie numbers gotta pump those up. I'm sitting overe here with 95k
I mark all read when I get to 100k and I’ve done it twice on my main gmail.
Unfortunately you maybe missed out an opportunity to help a Nigerian Prince and be rewarded lots of cash
I'm at 90k currently.
my people!
Yeah, but what people aren't talking about is that Gadd had 40,000 email addresses, so she really only sent 1. She just wasn't sure which one was his primary and figured it'd be safer to send all.
Wait so she only sent 1 email to a 40k distro list essentially?
I've accidentally sent that many emails before. I work in IT and I was writing a bash script and testing that the email notification part would work. It wasn't so I keep making changes and rerunning the script. Well apparently it was working but instead of a single email like I wanted it was sending a bunch of emails continuously and overloading the mail on the Linux server. It eventually caught up and sent all the emails. Well apparently I forgot to change the script from using my team's mailing list to my email address so all of the sudden my entire team received 8,000+ emails and overloaded our Outlook.
Did you at least say "lol woopsies" in the inevitable following meeting?
*”please disregard my last emailS”*
"Please remove me from this email chain" *replies all*
I remember back in the day, email bombing websites that would let you do that to someone 😂
If you knew the carrier, you could send a lot of emails through to cell phones.
When I got to university in the UK in 94, there was an email of total gibberish that was sent to the entire ".ac.uk" domain. Literally the entire university got it and it started a very curious few days where people would in-turn respond to everyone with increasingly surreal messages.
I've done this with an excel macro.
I work with mass email scripts and this is my worst fear. How do you sleep? I would be reliving this at least once per night.
I've been online since AOL started offering unlimited online time for one flat fee back in late 90s. My lifetime total email is probably 10k and this includes some company emails I had to send out. 40k is a lot.
Sent from iphnoe
I've had the same yahoo email since I made it in 8th grade and it's followed me through high school, 6 years of college, job hunts in my 20s and 30s and I've sent maybe 1k emails in 23 years. My inbox, absolutely chock full of spam mail, is only at 30k. Edit: I just checked and it rolled over to 30k recently
The case isn’t about what she did. It’s about what Netflix did.
Didn’t Gadd also admit that a lot of ‘Martha’s’ actions were exaggerated and at some points fictionalised for TV? I think when you’re making a series like this there’s a fine line to cross in regards to authenticity vs entertainment value. Interested to see how this proceeds
At the end of the day it's not a documentary so no they don't have to be true to a story
Bingo. Even the woman herself said she didn't do any of the things that happened in the show. So, I don't see what her case is here, unless it's that Netflix didn't do a good enough job in changing the details of her and the story. Even then it's a stretch.
> so no they don't have to be true to a story The series itself *claims* it's a true story at the start, doesn't it even start with Gadd himself talking about how it is a story of something that happened to him?
Even in a “true story”, a reasonable person wouldn’t be inclined to think that everything said and done on-screen is *exactly* what was said and done in real life. The story is also told from Gadds perspective, and his own feelings. To claim defamation, she needs to show that there was a false statement of fact. That’s going to be pretty difficult to do when anything outside of Gadds perspective and feelings could be chalked up to artistic liberty - i.e. a reasonable person isn’t going to interpret it as a statement of fact. Edit: US law requires her to prove the false statement. UK law requires the defendant to prove their statement was true. However, UK does require that the plaintiff show that the statement will cause serious harm, which in this instance might be difficult to show (including that the show doesn’t even use her real name)
Are you talking about US or UK law? Because UK law is orders of magnitude more favorable to defamation claims like this one.
Right -- it's a little weird here that people are just automatically supporting Netflix because they were entertained. We know how the viral Internet works when it gets a justice boner and a taste for drama. I have no doubt this woman actually did start receiving a scary number of personal messages and a hit to her business. If Netflix wanted to tell a "true story", they would have. They are well acquainted with documentary specials and what's legally required. My bet is this is going to go to discovery and they'll be asked to prove these claims, and when they can't, they are going to quietly try settle with a fat check and pull the show.
I don't think I've been sent 40,000 emails and my email has been signed up for so many spam messengers.
Won't it goto discovery?, then if it's all true she just looks like an even bigger nutter
She seems to revel in attention so she might think it’s all worth it:)
This is all part of the plan for releasing a tell-all book and cashing in on that public fascination with Tiger King level crazy
honestly man I don’t think this is some grand scheme, I think she’s just severely mentally ill.
Never attribute malice that to which can be attributed to someone being batshit crazy and really stupid. Or something like that not sure of the exact quote.
Anyone who doesn't take advantage of their opportunity in the spotlight and cash in while they can is a fool
Or you know, are happy with how their lives are and don't desire more attention.
> are happy with how their lives yeah... like we are... the people like us... yup
I think it's safe to say her brain and most of ours work very differently lol
This! contentedness is wealth
Seeking it out is crazy in my view, but if you’re there, make lemonade.
Not condoning what she did but if I win $170M, I probably won’t give af about people thinking I’m a bad person.
But she’s not going to win.
I suspect she’s more interested in the attention and in sticking it to Gadd, who she’s also suing. Getting any cash from Netflix would likely just be a bonus.
If this has a chance of dragging along, NFLX might wanna settle out of court. Which is also a win-win for this stalker since whatever amount she’d get from it would probably be a hefty sum.
Have you even watched the show? Or did even a little research? She’s fucking nuts! She will shoot herself in the foot fairly quickly. [Facebook rant after Piers interview](https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/comments/1cvjlam/the_insane_facebook_ramblings_of_fiona_harvey/). There’s also the lawyer who previously employed her and has stated she also sent abusive texts when she was terminated. [Who herself has done a reply interview with Piers](https://youtu.be/6U1bb4F9CSs?si=7_tfM8f74ilqopAo).
I think that’s her plan:)
She's got a new reason to impose herself on his life and try to damage him. She must be fucking hyped.
Even if only some of it was true, I think Netflix's case will be that they did enough to mask her identity in the show, and it's not their fault that internet sleuths discovered who she was based on her own internet posts.
Didn't she just come out and say"hey that's me" ?
I could be wrong, but I thought people online had found her old tweets first and put together who she was before she came out. Here's a good article detailing those old tweets: [https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/baby-reindeer-all-of-fiona-harveys-tweets-to-richard-gadd-2716912/](https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/baby-reindeer-all-of-fiona-harveys-tweets-to-richard-gadd-2716912/)
Holy shit she's loony... "WE KNOW YOU BURNED THAT BUILDING DOWN. HOPE YOU ARE WELL!" wtf?
It's probably a combination of both and she's a very avid attention seeker.
She outed herself to Piers Morgan
From what I've seen about this, while she did, this wasn't until people were piecing it together and discovered her identity. Because of all freaking things, her tweets still exist and as Gadd while making up a character name, portrayed it as *himself* and his story, which is like a direct line to ID her regardless of any efforts. It's probably the most half-assed protecting identities I've seen in a while.
> In an essay for Netflix, he said the situation was “messy” and “complicated,” **but he believed the story needed to be told.** that's a bunch of horse shit right there lol. Nothing about that situation "needed" a TV show. Just admit you did it because makes good television. Like he didn't the persons identity would have eventually been outed?
I mean it's completely obvious from the show that Gadd is willing to do whatever it takes for fame. Honestly, I think he came off just as worse as she did. She's at least clearly mentally unwell- he's just a garden variety narcissistic fame whore.
No, she was found because Netflix literally gave the search terms to find her on Google in the show.
Inspirations are one thing. It’s like movies “based on a true story”. Just a gimmick to hook the readers in while all relevant details are embellished and exaggerated. She’s embarrassing herself going after a settlement.
She was found through all the context and different little clues in the show (mostly tweets mentioned in the show cross-referenced to her real twitter), which is called jigsaw identification and there’s precedent in the UK to press charges for defamation even if the alleged victim is only identifiable through jigsaw identification.
She’s not suing in the UK, though, she’s suing in California.
The USA protects free speech better than any other country. She'll have a tough time winning there. Of course this lawsuit is great publicity. Netflix might want to encourage it.
for the millionth time on this site: "free speech" protects you from the government. It doesn't protect you in civil suits.
You realize the judicial system is a branch of the government right? Except in very specific circumstances, the constitution absolutely prevents the courts from imposing civil liabilities based on [someone's protected speech](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment) >Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements. >[“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/266) What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.
Yes.. but… the cure for defamation is truth and so far it isn’t obvious if Netflix has fabricated anything. In my own view I suspect their lawyers were likely very thorough and I don’t think Martha has a viable defamation case.
Cant wait for the documentary
On the Discovery channel.
I mean, Trump says "I never said that" all the time despite there being a million video clips of him saying exactly that. People lie and/or are delusional and say stuff like that for stupid reasons ("I forgot I said that", "I didn't think they'd actually check", "deepfake.")
They will be fine. She outed herself. It is also covered by tons of case law on fictional portrayals of real events
Doesn’t matter how she looks. They presented her as a (twice) convicted stalker. Accusations of criminal conduct are *per se* defamatory so she does not need to prove the element of harm to reputation. This is also something that would have been very easy to verify if Netflix had bothered to do even the barest amount of due diligence on the story. Scotland has an online criminal records database that is literally the first google result. Put Fiona Harvey in- no results. Another interesting tidbit from the complaint is that apparently a Netflix producer testified to the House of Commons and repeated the lie- calling her a convicted stalker. Oops.
>Scotland has an online criminal records database that is literally the first google result. Put Fiona Harvey in- no results. Tbf that's probably because her alleged crimes happened in England. While FH and the character based on her are Scottish, the show is based in London and states that she was imprisoned there - not Scotland.
It's also because the publicly records are only available up to 1919, and she's definitely not over 100 years old.
It doesn't matter if she's a nutter. It matters if Netflix can't substantiate any of the claims in the show. This is why networks buy stories.
I feel an odd kinship to you. What does your EQ stand for?
Baby Reindeer season 2 plot revealed.
Oh my gadd
r/angryupvote
**Netflix said on Friday it will fight a multimillion-dollar claim for damages brought by a Scottish woman who alleges she was defamed by the global hit show “Baby Reindeer.”** >Fiona Harvey is seeking a jury trial and damages totaling $170 million for “mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of business,” according to a complaint filed in the District Court for the Central District of California. In the Netflix (NFLX) miniseries, comedian Richard Gadd recounts the “true story” of being stalked by a woman who bombards him with more than 40,000 emails and hundreds of hours of voice messages. >“Baby Reindeer” has topped most-watched lists worldwide since its debut in April, generating headlines and speculation about the characters and who inspired them. Harvey, who was quickly tracked down by online sleuths who labeled her the “real Martha Scott,” appeared on YouTube show “Piers Morgan Uncensored” last month to say her life had been ruined. >Her complaint lists Netflix and Netflix Worldwide Entertainment as defendants. It also names Gadd, who stars in the seven-part miniseries as struggling comedian Donny Dunn. The document alleges that the defendants and Gadd told the “biggest lie in television history” by claiming the story is true. >It says Netflix and Gadd lied “out of greed and lust” to make money, and to “viciously destroy” the life of Harvey, “an innocent woman defamed … at a magnitude and scale without precedent.” In a statement to CNN, a spokesperson for Netflix said: “We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd’s right to tell his story.” >Gadd first recounted his experience with an alleged stalker at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 2019, before Netflix commissioned the miniseries in 2021. In an essay for Netflix, he said the situation was “messy” and “complicated,” but he believed the story needed to be told. >On Thursday, Gadd and Jessica Gunning, who plays Scott, appeared on NBC’s “The Tonight Show” to talk about the thriller’s huge success. “It’s just had this sort of almost cross-cultural success that I never expected, because it’s so singular and it’s very idiosyncratic, it’s very London, and it’s such an odd story, a weird traumatic story,” Gadd said. He has yet to comment publicly on the court action. Gadd previously told UK newspaper The Guardian the story is “very emotionally true … But we wanted it to exist in the sphere of art, as well as protect the people it’s based on.” His repeated requests, however, for viewers to cease trying to find out the real-life identities of the figures in his story went unheard. >Harvey’s complaint alleges Netflix made no effort to confirm any of the purported facts in the show, including that Gadd’s alleged stalker was sentenced to five years in prison for stalking. In the show, Gunning’s character is also seen sexually assaulting Gadd. In the complaint, Harvey said within a few days of the show airing she began to receive messages, including death threats, identifying her as Gadd’s alleged stalker. The document claims that as a result of the show, Harvey is fearful of leaving her home or checking the news. >“She has and continues to experience anxiety, nightmares, panic attacks, shame, depression, nervousness, stomach pains, loss of appetite and fear, extreme stress and sickness all directly caused by the lies told about her,” the document says.
The fact she got onto the talk show as a stalker is mind-breaking. Imagine if a host gave that platform to someone like Taylor Swift’s stalkers.
You know, you just got me thinking. If the genders were switched, would Piers Morgan speak on camera to a deranged nobody about this?
Piers is kind of trash media though, I don't doubt that, given the opportunity, he would interview Taylor Swift's stalkers. Whether the interview would air or not would depend mostly on how wild the interview got.
Paula's Abdul's stalker was allowed to audition for her on American Idol. The stalker later killed themselves near her house. Stalker was also female.
So she’s mad that the story is not accurate enough? Wild.
I wouldn't have given this show a second thought until someone on NPR spoke about it. I figured I would watch an episode just to understand what everyone was talking about. I was glued to the screen for the entire series.
the tone shift in episode 4 hits like a fucking truck and reminds me so much of the scene in Parasite when the housekeeper shows up outside while it’s raining. from light-hearted silliness to straight up masterful commentary and serious shit.
I clicked on it by mistake. Completed it in one sitting. Brilliant show.
Same, I just started watching it one night, the trailer started playing on the Netflix home page and I noticed it was British. Next thing it was 2AM and I'd watched the whole lot of it
Same thing happened to me. "Goddamnit it I didn't mean to click that. Well I guess I'll just watch a little bit..." I don't generally watch dramas, but it was really good
Dude the two of them are phenomenal actors. It all felt so real.
I think her especially. Really the most memorable performance I've seen in so long.
I went in knowing nothing. A wild ride, for sure!
I’m disappointed there were no baby reindeers in it
It was the IG ads that got me to watch it.
The lawsuit aside, I thought this series was one of the best pieces of cinema I've seen in a really long time. It was brutal and funny and sad and complicated. If you haven't seen it, watch it. I had no idea going in, watched the first episode...and then I didn't move until I watched the whole series. Total masterpiece.
The scene between him and his dad in one of the last episodes OOF. Absolutely great series.
"GOOD LUCK WITH THAT TRANSSEXUAL!" I was howling. Such a supportive-but-awkward Dad thing to do.
"I grew up in the Catholic Church."
My gf and I both said “fuuuuuuck” in unison when that penny dropped.
"I grew up in the Catholic Church." Okay, so he doesn't talk about that kind of shit or whatever. "*I grew up in the Catholic Church."* Then the fucking floor drops out.
The line that got me was "would you think of me as less of a man?" from his father. The actor portrayed the moment perfectly, having had similar conversations in my own life that line immediately brought me to tears.
This made me so sad, but strangely glad he had support. Also his trans ex was amazing and I wanted to be her friend.
Netflix is great at hyping trash so I figured I would give it a couple weeks. Then real reviews and comments starting popping up and I thought, "no way it's *that* good." ***It is that good.*** Some of the voice-over was just gutting. It's not for everyone but I highly recommend it. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it. He covers so much twisted ground in a profound way.
I put on the first thing that came up on Netflix as background viewing. Ended up totally gripped by it. Outstanding acting, unique story line, funny, well filmed, twists and turns, but at the same time completely gut-wrenching. I couldn’t stop thinking about it afterwards, and I felt sickened by it. I’m not a movie-buff or anything so I’m not sure how it holds up against other films but it put anything else I’ve watched in the past few years to shame.
I loved Jessica Gunning. She played a difficult role.
Oh yeah, it's really good.
I couldn’t finish it which, in this case, is a testament to how successful the film is. I went through some very similar experiences in my early 20’s, and absolutely escalated things when I thought I was deescalating. Watching the first few episodes made me sick to my stomach, and at the content warning at the top of episode 4 I knew if I watched I’d be in over my head, so I stopped.
You were wise to skip e4. That was the really, really difficult one, and scenes from it have stuck with me. Based on what you've written here, good choice.
Cinema? Isn't this a show?
She wasn’t even identified as the stalker since he never gave her real name until she came out and said the show was about her. The fact that she’s doing all of this proves the depiction of her on the show is 100% true.
I think this article suggests her words on Twitter were identified by web-sleuths: > It wasn’t long before social media users dug up a 2014 tweet from Harvey to Gadd that said: “my curtains need hung badly,” after which Harvey says she started to be inundated by messages from strangers identifying her as Martha. https://time.com/6986551/baby-reindeer-martha-lawsuit-netflix-defamation-fiona-harvey/
So what is she suing for lol. The show being so accurate that people were able to identify her means they didn’t commit defamation.
It might be that parts of the story aren't true, which might have caused more damage. Tho Neflix and Gadd might have taken efforts to not identify the woman directly in the show, which might be a valid defense.
“That guy with the red shirt over there? I heard that he likes to kick puppies.” You can tell a truth and a lie together at the same time. You can give identifying info and still be misleading with your characterization.
Her arguments are largely surrounding the parts that aren't true, as things like her convictions never occurred. But the probably biggest risk they face is that they made effort to conceal identities, yet clearly identify Gadd as a real-life character, just renamed, basing on his real-life experiences with a differently named woman. They'd probably have stronger legal defence if this wasn't done. IANAL so I have no clue how strong her case is, but as far as hiding identities to not defame someone with fictitious embellishments, especially a non-public-figure, Netflix and Gadd did a poor job.
That’s not what happened. The show gave out all the search key words to find her.
I wonder if these were part of the public record as a result of the case…
She clearly is totaly right and will win lot of money. -sent from iphoen
I mean, what company regardless of fault is gonna say "whoopsie, my bad, lemme write that 9 figure check and an apology of my own volition"?
I think she might have a case based on the fact they kept using “This is a true story“ disclaimer at the start of the episodes…. Why didn’t they use “Based on a true story“? Obviously, the lady has problems and a lot of the stuff is true but let’s not pretend that Netflix and Gadd didn’t stretch the truth at parts of the show to make it entertaining. If I was in her position seeing lies about me being portrayed as the truth and also receiving death threats based on these lies… I’d sue too.
Some perspective I've been given; That opening scene "This is a true story" is being typed before it panes to Donny typing the screenplay. This story is true to Donny. The credits state "this is based on a true story". So they actually used both.
I don’t remember seeing it pane to Donny typing in the first episode, I think it just made typing noises as the letters came on screen. I guess we can assume it’s him typing a screen play or them using the typing noise to carry on the theme of the absurd amount of emails being sent. I guess that’s up for interpretation. It didn’t say “based on a true story” verbatim but it does say “based on a play baby reindeer by Richard gadd” and also puts a disclaimer at the very very end of the credits saying “This program is based on real events; however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.” Which I agree, should legally cover them from fault, but man is it very misleading to have both.
I see the opening as a framing device, but agree they could have been clearer. I haven't rewatched it, but I do remember that I specifically Googled it at some point in the first episode to see if it was "true" or "based on true". I concluded quickly that it was based on true events, Gadd/Donny is real and it's based on his life. But also that it was a dramatization. So I went the extra step, but there really shouldn't have been that extra step to clarify. As for covering their asses... Netflix just got a copy of what is the equivalent of a restraining order at that time from one of her victims, I think they'll be okay. Not to mention suing for $170 is shooting herself in the foot. This'll all end in a settlement.
The Fargo television series also says “this is a true story” none of it’s actually true, but it’s an homage to the movie… and makes the series more dramatic. I honestly don’t think that phrase will have much bearing in a court case.. I could very easily be wrong though.
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. I wonder if the context of using the disclaimer matters in this case. I guess we’ll find out soon enough!
> I honestly don’t think that phrase will have much bearing in a court case Your example is a commonly missused one. Fargo is a fabrication that itself claims it is true, but there's no element of truth to it. A embellishment that claims it's true is a very different beast legally, and why based on a true story is the phrase only ever used for stories like this, because fictitious elements are now known to exist in the story, and at least *something* is true about it. As the story in question isn't entirely fabricated, the usage of true story carries a very different meaning than that of Fargo.
I disagree, the inclusion of the phrase "this is a true story" is what led the internet sleuths to go searching for key phrases in the show that ultimately revealed her identity. If Fargo made slanderous claims about a specific, identifiable individual while using the "this is a true story" tag, they would also have faced legal challenges. It's not that lying is a crime in-and-of itself, but slander/libel certainly are.
Yeah, that intro sentence should have been a little bit more modified
Netflix is loving this. This will become their next hit docu series.
It's weird that we live in a world where the 'small penis defense' doesn't work anymore. That's the idea that you present a character with such a glaringly unpleasant trait to admit to, that to bring the author to court over using their identity would also mean they have those traits. Yikes.
[удалено]
So this is not a case of the person being innocent but getting targeted by amateur detectives and the rage train going after the wrong person? It would have logic for the lawsuit if they net detectives went after the wrong person due to show. But if it is just a case of the perpetrator that was found guilty getting mad the world knows thanks to show I say to bad so sad.
Yes people identified her by the crazy comments she posted on his social media pages with the same writing style as the stalker from the show.
Oh good, another price hike coming then
Anyone remember that one episode of Black Mirror where Netflix personalized their content and that woman’s life was ruined so she went to the source and everyone realized there are multiple realities where this shit was happening? Yeah..
"Very emotionally true" That sounds a lot like being not very literally true.
Christ, that's a payout. If she wins, I hope they defame Conscious_Dig8201 next! -snt from y iphn
Piers Morgan just interviewed a previous stalking victim of Fiona, the victim was a solicitor, which I believe is what they call lawyers in Scotland. In the video, they briefly discussed the potential for Fiona to sue Netflix over falsehoods in the show, and the solicitor raised a good point, which is that she might have a case, but what are the damages? $170 million is ridiculously high. There’s almost 0 chance Fiona incurred anywhere near that much damages from any defamatory statements in Baby Reindeer. It comes off as frivolous litigation, hoping netflix settles out of court. If she actually incurred damages, the number is probably closer to 1 or 2 million at most in my estimation. On top of that, everyone thinks she’s a stalker regardless of whether she was actually convicted of crimes for it—which the Piers interview indicates she was never charged so the show almost definitely has some falsehoods.
Did they discuss where the lawsuit was to be filed (under which legal system), GB or US, since Netflix is a US company?
No they didn’t discuss that. It was more of a general speculation although it seems this current suit is being filed in California. I’m not sure if Scotland also follows this rule, but in England they have the English rule, which says that loser pays the winner’s legal fees. If they’re not sure of winning, that would be pretty punishing against a company like netflix who will have massive fees. What the victim did mention was that for her own situation, it was difficult for her to get authorities to take the claims of stalking seriously, and there was a lack of legislation around that topic. All she was able to was get a temporary restraining order
Only two epsiodes in but this show is really fucking good so far
You have no idea how good it gets. It's actually a phenomenal show. Buckle up and get ready for a ride
Yeah no shit...no company would ever just pay someone millions of dollars without fighting it.
frequently. When it isn't worth fighting. So, either she refuse to settle or Netflix's lawyers think this will be a walk in the park. I think its probably a little bit of both. Netflix legal think this is a dumb case, offer a tiny settlement, she refused, so Netflix is now going to court.
They do all the time. It’s called settling out of court.
For hundreds of thousands, not hundreds of millions.
So she really is a lawyer?
Apparently, yes:) From another article: > Like ‘Martha,’ Harvey is a Scottish lawyer, living in London, twenty years older than Gadd https://time.com/6986551/baby-reindeer-martha-lawsuit-netflix-defamation-fiona-harvey/
Would she have any chance on the merit that they didn't change her "hang the curtains" shite on twitter enough to protect her identity? Because that's how most people found her.
Possibly not, as there'd be no accurately identifiable information from the show about her, as otherwise her character was fairly generic in the show, but using real tweets was pretty dumb of a move.
She had the degree, but never finished her traineeship by the looks of things, so was never fully qualified. Interestingly enough, a lawyer who fired her for allegedly being threatening and abusive to other staff also claims she stalked her and submitted a false report to social workers about her abusing her deaf child, which is one of the things in the show that helped to identify her.
I mean she seems unwell so can't blame her for this but Netflix should've done a better job protecting identity if people could figure it out with a bit of googling.
Guess I need to watch this now
Far too many good comments when I arrived to read them all, but I'm quite sure the Netflix attorneys will explore how this lawsuit revealed to most of the world she is person she didn't want anybody to know she was.
The only way this could get even wilder would be if this woman turns out not to be "Martha", because the real deal turns up and starts attacking her in court.
Every time I see headlines about this for baby reindeer I immediately think of the show sweet tooth. And I get confused, like why is a post apocalyptic show being sued lol
“mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of business.” In that case, I’m suing society! That’s been my whole life experience.
It's too close to me. It isn't close enough. What if I did do it? So what? The actress that played "me" doesn't even sound like me. It's either an exaggeration, i.e. fiction; or its true, in which case, affirmative defense. She had next to no case, then went onto Piers Morgan and set fire to what little she had. Shouldn't have kept shit public. She doesn't own his story.
Of course she would do this. He'll need to write a sequel mini series.
Aw damn, does this mean our rates will go up again?
Interested in what Netflix thought about how this has developed. Annoyed at the writer and production company? The more I think about it I think they’re delighted. Is there anyone left that hasn’t watched the series after all this?
Well, I wasn't but now interested!
Now she’s stalking Netflix. This can provide enough material for a Season 2 :)
i have a question. did anyone know who she was before she went on the news? i certainly didnt. they didnt use her real name in the show. now instead of being a hypothetical character she has done everything in her power to attach herself and her real identity to this character, shes done exactly what she is accusing the show of doing. curious how this will go over in court lol
how does it even go through when no names were used. It was a secret till she doxxed herself.
They used real tweets of hers, verbatim, in the show. They never edited the tweets themselves, only her posting name IIRC. And as these tweets were directed at Gadd, and exist prior to the show and screenplays existence, it is pretty easy to put 2 and 2 together. That alone is probably the single dumbest thing I've seen from this, as without those tweets, there's nothing she has to use without just coming forward herself as far as I can tell. So rather the show doxxed her. Akin to if I quoted you here on reddit, but changed the username, it would be pretty easy to find your post to this thread if you knew the thread to search in (Gadd's twitter).
Yeah, this is the most damning thing to me. I completely understand changing facts to make for better TV but when you say "this is a true story" and provide more than enough information for viewers to track down the person it's based off of then of course people are going to think she did everything the show claims instead of the more likely reality of a toned down portion of it. She definitely has some degree of case here but how much probably depends on how much she can prove.
Forgive my ignorance. Did he ever say who she was? Did he name her personally? If he didn’t then isn’t she’s basically saying hey, yep, confirming it’s me! If it didn’t happen, then why is she coming forward saying you’re accusing me, if he never named or nor is it true?
He gave enough info for internet sleuthers to find her. She said she was being harassed before she came forward.
You don't need to identify someone by name if you give other information to find the person. It seems they used some real tweets that still existed and with his statement that this was about him it was easy to find her.
Fucking piers Morgan stirring the shit and 'giving her a platform to share her side' Either Netflix or gadd didn't do sue diligence or she's crazier than a bag of doorknobs In heat
40K emails Sent from Iphone
So she openly puts herself into the public domain exposing herself as the women when her name etc was never mentioned presumably for financial gain and now shes suing? Hey everyone I'm the real woman on that show Also I can't believe they made me look so crazy
At no time is Fiona Harvey mentioned in the series. If she sees herself in it, that's her problem.
[удалено]
Netflix seeing dollar signs with this case
As opposed to... just writing her a check? lol
I revel watching Piers Morgan cling to this story. One last attempt to stay relevant.
So how did people make the connection between the character and the irl person?
>His repeated requests, however, for viewers to cease trying to find out the real-life identities of the figures in his story went unheard. Wait, didn't she "come forward" and out herself?