Scrutable

IvanV wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:56 am The Baby Reindeer case seems to be, and I haven't followed it carefully, a bit more tenuous. I think the person who is suing is not directly identified as the person in the film. And I think the film is claimed rather more strongly to be a fiction with some limited basis in real events, rather than a fictionalisation of those real life. I think the claimant will have a harder job showing identification here. I don't think the press identified her, rather she came forward. She claims that some people at least would have identified her, and I have no idea about that. Then clearly there will be a debate as to what extent the film is fiction or a defamatory portrayal. If Musk can call people pedos and get away with it in the US, I would think this case would have little chance. But then Depp won his case in the US having lost it in London.

bob sterman wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:36 am

IvanV wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:56 am The Baby Reindeer case seems to be, and I haven't followed it carefully, a bit more tenuous. I think the person who is suing is not directly identified as the person in the film. And I think the film is claimed rather more strongly to be a fiction with some limited basis in real events, rather than a fictionalisation of those real life. I think the claimant will have a harder job showing identification here. I don't think the press identified her, rather she came forward. She claims that some people at least would have identified her, and I have no idea about that. Then clearly there will be a debate as to what extent the film is fiction or a defamatory portrayal. If Musk can call people pedos and get away with it in the US, I would think this case would have little chance. But then Depp won his case in the US having lost it in London.

Well not in the UK but it looks like the Baby Reindeer case has legs in the US...

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... dd-netflix

The combination of the "This is a true story" line and depicting an identifiable person as a convicted criminal (where they were not) would seem to make a pretty compelling case.

dyqik wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 8:49 pm

noggins wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 2:59 pm Nitpick: Musk got away with 'pedo' by successfully arguing it was low abuse rather than an accusation.


Seems fictionalisation of trauma has a catch-22.

f you stick to the facts, you identify the harmer.

If you dont, fuckwits misidentify them and wholly innocent people suffer.

If you ficitonalise a bit, your harmer is identifiable and then tries to sue you for the bits you changed.

That's not a real Catch-22 though, because there's no draft that requires you to fictionalize trauma under penalty of law. You can always take the Wargames route out.

"The only winning move is not to play"

noggins wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 9:40 am

dyqik wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 8:49 pm

noggins wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 2:59 pm Nitpick: Musk got away with 'pedo' by successfully arguing it was low abuse rather than an accusation.


Seems fictionalisation of trauma has a catch-22.

f you stick to the facts, you identify the harmer.

If you dont, fuckwits misidentify them and wholly innocent people suffer.

If you ficitonalise a bit, your harmer is identifiable and then tries to sue you for the bits you changed.

That's not a real Catch-22 though, because there's no draft that requires you to fictionalize trauma under penalty of law. You can always take the Wargames route out.

"The only winning move is not to play"

But if you choose to stalk or otherwise harm someone, you deserve protection against exposure ?