How is "The Windsors" (Netflix) not slander/libel/etc?

^^^ argh, damn autocorrect. It should read, "... saying Melania Trump caught PUBIC lice..."

OP, you really don't know defamation law at all. Not in the US nd not in the UK. Perhaps back away from the keyboard.

OK, r2, would you care to enlighten us all, then?

The series obviously passes legal muster in the UK. But I can't even fathom how a comparable series involving Americans could EVER air in the US without getting the network sued into oblivion. And remember... Meghan IS a US citizen by birth, who is now living IN the United States along with her husband (who's officially no longer a voluntary public figure) and child.

Can you even FATHOM a Netflix series called "The Obamas" that had an episode with Malia losing her virginity and trying to keep her parents from finding out? Or, going a step closer to the closest thing the US actually HAS to a dynastic family entwined in politics, a series with a title like "Bushwhacked" that had an episode showing his daughters doing lines of coke from a male stripper's abs in the VIP section of a nightclub in South Beach while George P got his ass eaten out by the stripper himself? Even if they had a ticker-tape warning scrolling across the bottom of the screen throughout the entire episode that said something like, "This is a complete work of fiction with no basis in reality whatsoever", they'd be sued into oblivion.

OP, why don't you give us the citation to that article.

r4, just to be clear, the example involving Melania was LITERALLY made up to illustrate the point of how, even as the First Lady and a public figure, there are still absolute limits to how far the US press could go with a story about her, REGARDLESS of whether or not it's factually true. The boundaries might not be brightly defined, especially for someone who ends up in the public eye by virtue of not trying particularly hard to stay OUT of it, but if you cross those boundaries, you're going to be at MAJOR risk of getting sued.

The same applies to books and movies making allegations about the private actions of long-dead public figures, like past presidents who still have identifiable living descendants. Consider a TV show like "Legends of Tomorrow" that involves time travel. Suppose they had an episode that depicted 22 year old FDR casually murdering a prostitute and dumping her body into the Hudson River. Yes, it would be a TV show with all the requisite disclaimers... but depicting FDR at a point in his life when he was a private citizen, doing something outrageously immoral and illegal no less, would come very dangerously close to crossing the line... assuming it didn't storm right over it and keep going.

My point is, in the US (and California in particular), there are real limits to how far you can go when an actual person is somehow implicated or involved... regardless of disclaimers, and even regardless of whether or not they're a public figure or celebrity. The further away from the scope of the reason WHY they're a public figure (especially if it's demonstrably false), the more at-risk of getting sued you'll end up being.

Olivia de Havilland had her lawsuit against FX and Ryan Murphy for Catherine Zeta Jones' depiction of her in "Feud". The Supreme Court refused to take on the case, but she lost it on grounds that the depiction was transformative and "Publishing a fictitious work about a real person cannot mean the author, by virtue of writing fiction, has acted with actual malice," wrote the California appellate panel. "Recognizing this, in cases where the claimed highly offensive or defamatory aspect of the portrayal is implied, courts have required plaintiffs to show that the defendant 'intended to convey the defamatory impression.' De Havilland must demonstrate that FX either deliberately cast her statements in an equivocal fashion in the hope of insinuating a defamatory import to the reader, or that it knew or acted in reckless disregard of whether its words would be interpreted by the average reader as defamatory statements of fact.""

R5/OP, please give us the citation to the article. Or is the OP all your own original writing?

Surely it doesn't violate any laws because it's a comedy? It's not claiming to be a documentary.

Anyway, if they were anywhere near as hard on Meghan as they are on Pippa (who's not only portrayed as a gold-digger but a bad mother) Harry would freak.

STFU OP

you are bonkers

In the US, the relevant standard is NYT v. Sullivan. For defamation (slander / libel), a "public figure" has to prove "actual malice." Certain people (Melania Trump, Harry / Meghan) are going to sue, anyway. Michelle Obama was called way worse than Melania and she didn't sue.

r2 is correct. Also, the OP was literally too stupid/wrong to read all the way through.

The Windors is hilarious. It's not a documentary. It's fiction - it imagines if the Windors were part of a soap opera. No one is saying that the actual Harry really can't read. Or that the real Princess Anne tuns air cold with her breath....

[quote] But I can't even fathom how a comparable series involving Americans could EVER air in the US without getting the network sued into oblivion. And remember... Meghan IS a US citizen by birth, who is now living IN the United States along with her husband (who's officially no longer a voluntary public figure) and child.

There is so much incorrect about what you are trying to say but here is an example: it makes no difference what citizenship Markle has. She can sue in any jurisdiction in the US in which she can convince the court it has venue. That depends on various factors of both the plaintiff (the one suing) and/or the respondent (the one being sued).

Another glaring error: it is definitely easier to sue in the UK.

Another glaring example: there are privacy laws in the UK that do not exist in the US. Your example of laws to protect medical information have almost nothing to do with defamation (libel or slander) lawsuits. You seem to be confusing defamation cases with privacy cases. Markle's UK lawsuit has more to do with privacy. IIRC she is arguing they published excerpts from private letters selected to make her look bad. The problem she is encountering is that the letters were also published by her friends (who obviously got them from her) thereby undermining her claim of privacy. .

Another error: I cannot fathom a court in the US which would rule both Markle and Prince Harry ordinary citizens. They are not. It is not what they declare themselves, but rather what the reality is of their personas - both are public figures. With or without titles. Anyone would be hard pressed not to see they live their lives very much intentionally in the public eye. Look at the speech she made today. Can you imagine the evidence she and Harry would have to produce in depositions and discovery concerning their press relations and contacts? With public figures/celebrities, the plaintiffs (Markle & Co) would have to prove not only that what was said about her/him/them is false, they would have to also prove it was published with "actual malice" which is a legal term for "reckless disregard of the truth" - sort of like failure to perform due diligence. Not about intent or being mean to them. Example: a staff member of Buckingham Place gives information of an unpleasant nature about Markle to the NY Post and the NY Post checks out the stafffer and have also received info in the past from this staffer that proved to be true. That is the evidence they have done due diligence and could reasonably rely on that person and their info. So even if the info is false, the NY Post would win.

Of course the info has to also actually be defamatory and not just information that Markle acted rude or ordered someone else's staff around. Plus there has to be damages you can prove. Not just hurt feelings or some amorphous "damage."

See why it's so hard to win defamation cases in the US?

There are numerous other legal principles and case law that guide this area of the law. Maybe in future just link to articles about how defamation law works or whatever laws, case law, or theories you are suggesting they sue under.

[quote] IIRC she is arguing they published excerpts from private letters selected to make her look bad.

She may be suing for that reason, but she is also suing because the newspaper took a letter she wrote, took out some sentences and then published it and said the abbreviated version was the version she wrote

If she would have just sued for that reason, she'd win. But bringing this private citizen stuff into it is just muddying the water. It's so crazy that it will overshadow the wrongdoing on the part of the tabloid

99% of the lawsuit is crazy and 1% has merit

Once upon a time, it would have been illegal: for years in the UK, you could not put on a play or a movie with a portrayal of a living member of the royal family. That finally changed in 1972 with Royce Ryton's play [italic]Crown Matrimonial,[/italic] about the 1936 Abdication Crisis (the then-Queen Mother Elizabeth was a character in the play).

These days, a judge in the UK would say "The Windsors" counted as a satire, and satire of public figures is considered non-libelous.

[quote] Another glaring error: it is definitely easier to sue in the UK.

That is exactly what I was going to say. The whole premise of the argument is wrong. It is much easier to sue for libel/defamation in the UK.

R14 I hate the argument that a person has a right to privacy for a letter that they wrote. Once you write a letter or email to a person, that person should have the right to make such communications public, if they wish to, especially to defend themselves from inaccurate reports being spread by the writer or their associates. People should always operate under the position that if you don't want something to be made public, don't commit it to paper.

Because it's parody. Also, slander is verbal and not broadcast. Try reading the Wikipedia article on libel and look up some of the savage attacks on presidents. Lyndon Johnson is a good place to start.

It's a satire, not a parody.

OP, It is FAR easier to sue for libel in the UK than in the US.

Also, the Windsors has been unbelievably kind to Meghan. They show her mentioning that she was on a cable show and using the word "ME" a lot, and that's about it. Neither of those things is defamatory. The show has studiously avoided the constant scandals and her constantly embarrassing behaviour. She is the richest vein for parody in that family, but the show writers have been decidedly hands-off in her case.

They portray Harry as stupid. It would be hard to make the case that is defamatory: Everyone from his own mother to his brother to his teachers to his military buddies have been quoted joking about how dumb Harry is - Diana literally called him "An air head".

So far, the funniest thing in the entire show has been when they showed Meghan in Buckingham Palace a thick book called "Prince Philip's Big Book of Ethnic Slurs" (in the show, that's the final straw that prompts Meghan to insist she and Harry move to N. America).

R21 The funny thing is that the actress playing Meghan is a better actress than the real Meghan.

Satire and parody are protected by the First Amendment in the US, and politicians *can't* sue.

The UK recognizes satire and parody as freedom of speech, and royals and politicians *don't* sue just for being caricatured. It's just not done.

The definition of satire: "The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

[quote]In this country, the freedom to lampoon our politicians is a cherished part of our democratic traditions and is recognised as a fundamental aspect of our freedom of speech. Parliament itself has a page on its own website praising the “distinctive and innovative” tradition of political satire in Britain and reproducing images from its own collection of Gillray, Hogarth and Doyle, amongst others.

'The Windsors' version of Meghan makes her the most likable, intelligent, and level headed member of the family.

[quote] 'The Windsors' version of Meghan makes her the most likable, intelligent, and level headed member of the family.

I disagree. Kate is the one who is portrayed as the most intelligent and level headed family member on "The Windsors." Meghan is portrayed on the show as a narcissistic and woke (if likable) ditz.

The interesting thing, though, is that although Kate is the most admirable of the characters, the real heroine of the show that has emerged this last season is Beatrice, in part because the actress who plays her is so funny and endearing.

I said they were "hands off" in their criticism, but the show hardly makes Meghan likeable r24. Not for a UK audience anyway. She comes off as loud, fake, shallow, self-involved and completely uninterested in her new surroundings. But they make all of that quite funny because the character is so clueless.

r25 is right. They make Kate the most levelheaded and likeable, and the gypsy thing is funny because it's so un-Kate.

Parody is a protected form of speech. Besides, If Olivia deHavilland could successfully sue, then the Harkles would never stand a chance.

I wish the show had more Beatrice!

[quote] The UK recognizes satire and parody as freedom of speech, and royals and politicians *don't* sue just for being caricatured. It's just not done

But they do not have Freedom of Speech in the UK. They don't even have a totally free press. Google "D notice". They don't.

Just look up "injunction". It prohibits the press from reporting about a subject. A politician/actor/anyone who has enough money can go to court and ask a judge to prohibit the press from reporting that they've done something they don't want the public to know about. That they've cheated on their spouse. Anything. It costs about $50,000 to hire a lawyer and apply for an injunction. It works about 98% of the time. They just have to convince a judge it would make them look bad in the public's eyes and the public shouldn't know about it

It worked for elton john's husband. david beckham, the Queen's nephew (David Linley), all kinds of rich people

And if you yell at someone in the U.K, you can be arrested for assault. Yes, you can. This happens all the time in the U.K

Google Christian Bale and read all about it. He didn't hit his mother or his sister. He yelled at them in loud voice

The U.K has all kinds of laws regarding speech