Babak Belurs

Rabu, 29 Juli 2020

Meghan Markle attempts to keep five friends' identities secret - Daily Mail

Meghan Markle says naming her five 'young mother friends' who briefed People magazine for an article about her father is an 'unacceptable price to pay' in her claim against the Mail

Duchess of Sussex has asked the High Court to keep names of friends secret
Group briefed People in US about her and contents of letter sent to her father
Thomas Markle spoke to Mail on Sunday and shared the note to 'defend himself'
Associated Newspapers says not naming women defies principle of open justice
Judge Mr Justice Warby to rule whether women can be named early in August

By Martin Robinson, Chief Reporter For Mailonline

Published: 15:44 BST, 29 July 2020 | Updated: 15:59 BST, 29 July 2020

Meghan Markle believes naming the five female friends who briefed People magazine about her and a letter sent to her father Thomas would be an 'unacceptable price to pay' for pursuing a claim against the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, the High Court heard today.

The Duchess of Sussex has applied for an order to keep secret the identities of the women, all 'young mothers', at a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Today a skeleton argument presented to the court by Meghan's legal team said: 'To disclose their identities to the public at this stage is an unacceptable price to pay for the right to pursue her claim for invasion of privacy'.

But in an embarrassing moment during the application Meghan's QC Justin Rushbrooke accidentally said the surname of one of the five friends the Duchess of Sussex is seeking to keep anonymous.

Judge Mr Justice Warby, who is expected to rule on the matter before August 8, immediately directed that the individual's name was not to be reported.

The five women were named as the sources of a People Magazine article in 2019 in legal papers submitted by Meghan to the court earlier this month, although their identities were not made public.

The People article lies at the heart of her privacy and copyright case against the Mail on Sunday because it was the first time the existence of a letter the Duchess had written to her father Thomas was revealed.

In response Antony White, QC for Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, told the court that the principle of open justice in Britain means the five friends should be named. Mr White also said Meghan was apparently 'pleased ... with her friends' intervention' in speaking to People magazine, apart from the reference to the letter she wrote to her estranged father.

Meghan Markle (pictured with Prince Harry in October 2018) have asked for a High Court order to stop anyone from naming her five female friends who briefed People magazine

He said: 'There is no proper evidential basis (for the application). There is no evidence at all from four of the five friends and the evidence from the fifth (Friend B) has been shown to be unsatisfactory.'

Who are Meghan's five friends who briefed People magazine?

The five friends, described as 'young mothers', have never been named.

What little information there is came from People magazine, who referred to them as 'Meghan's inner circle'.

The first was 'a longtime friend' of Meghan, the second was referred to as 'a former co-star', the third 'a friend from LA', the fourth is described as 'a onetime colleague' with the fifth described as 'a close confidante'.

Earlier this month Meghan gave away that the friends were all women in her witness statement related to today's order application.

Revealing they all had children she said: 'Each of these women is a private citizen, young mother, and each has a basic right to privacy'.

Mr White said: 'There is no risk of reprisal in this case.' The barrister added: 'The information they disclosed to People was information about the claimant, but is not said by her to be private or information that she seeks to protect.'

The Mail On Sunday claims that revelations in People and the misleading impression it gave of the letter gave Thomas Markle the right to publish more of the handwritten note in the newspaper to defend himself after their relationship became hopelessly estranged in the wake of Meghan's marriage to Harry in May 2018.

But Meghan insists that she had no idea any of her friends had spoken to People magazine until after the fact.

All five of the women face the prospect of being hauled to the High Court in London next year to testify in the explosive privacy trial. They could be asked to confirm on oath whether the Duchess had no prior knowledge that they were going to speak to People.

Neither Meghan nor Harry attended the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London today.

ANL's lawyers are resisting the application to keep the identities of Meghan's friends secret, claiming the duchess's friends brought the letter into the public domain when it was referred to for the first time in the People interview.

In written submissions, Antony White QC, acting for ANL, said: 'The friends are important potential witnesses on a key issue.

'Reporting these matters without referring to names would be a heavy curtailment of the media's and the defendant's entitlement to report this case and the public's right to know about it.

'No friend's oral evidence could be fully and properly reported because full reporting might identify her, especially as there has already been media speculation as to their identities.'

Mr White also said the present order sought by the duchess's lawyers would leave Meghan entitled to disclose the identities to anyone - including the media - who could publish it, while ANL's titles would remain barred from doing so.

Meghan's barrister Justin Rushbrooke QC said Meghan's five friends were entitled to 'a very high level of super-charged right of confidentiality' and confidential journalistic sources.

He claimed 'there is ample evidence before the court' to support his client's application to maintain the anonymity of her five friends.

He said: 'We say at least four of the five sources have no real role at all on the issue raised by the defendant's defence regarding the interview with People magazine in the US.'

Thomas Markle spoke to the Mail on Sunday and shared the letter from his daughter after the friends spoke to People magazine to 'defend himself' - the evidence of the group of five women is at the centre of the High Court battle

He added that one of the five, known only as Friend B, had provided a witness statement to the court in support of the application.

Mr Rushbrooke said Friend B was 'the best possible person' to provide evidence as 'she is the one who actually orchestrated the interviews'.

He told the court: 'These were confidential sources who gave the interviews on condition of anonymity.'

He also said: 'The defendant, in its own coverage - going right back to the first article... that gave rise to this entire litigation - they themselves describe the interviews as anonymous.

'When they regaled their readers with a long and sensational article online within hours of the document being served upon them, they themselves described the interviews as anonymous and the names of the five friends as being put into a confidential court document. But, within hours, we find a volte face.'

The five friends had decided to 'help' by giving interviews anonymously to People magazine, which has 35million readers worldwide. Meghan insists she knew nothing about it

Mr Rushbrooke QC then told the court that MailOnline published an article on July 1, the day after the confidential schedule containing her five friends' names was served on MailOnline's publisher Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

Mr Rushbrooke said the article was published just before 5pm, adding: 'If they got it at midnight, journalists were no doubt poring over it with glee in the morning.'

He said it was a 'massively long article which in its own sub-headline records, we say, accurately that ... 'Meghan has now identified the five friends, who spoke anonymously, naming them in confidential papers'.

Mr Rushbrooke said MailOnline published another article on Meghan's application shortly after the first one.

He said: 'Let there be no doubt about it, these two publications are what set off the chain reaction of other publicity given by other organs to the response. It could not possibly be suggested otherwise.'

Mr Rushbrooke added: 'It was the defendant and only the defendant because only the defendant had the document which started the wildfire.'

He continued: 'Other litigants do not make commercial fodder out of the other side's pleadings, but since this one does and since this one has asserted in correspondence that this very document is properly reportable by the media - although they graciously said they won't publish it until the outcome of today's hearing - that is precisely why we say an order ... is necessary'.

Mr Justice Warby said he will give his decision on the duchess's application in writing at a later date.

He said he was 'not going to make any predictions' as to when that would be, but that he would deliver his ruling as soon as he can.

In People's bombshell February 2019 interview, the five women, who were described by the magazine as 'a special sisterhood', lavished praise on Meghan.

One of them – identified in court papers by Meghan as 'Friend A' – told the world about the letter she had posted to her father in October 2018.

Thomas Markle said he spoke to Mail on Sunday afterwards - and shared the note - to 'defend himself' against an inaccurate portrayal of him in People.

Meghan named her five friends to the High Court in a confidential schedule which was kept secret. In a public document she named them as Friends A to E. They cannot be named

She identified Friend A as the one who had told People that the letter had said: 'Dad, I'm so heartbroken. I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimising me through the media so we can repair our relationship.'

Meghan claimed this was an 'unfortunately inaccurate' portrayal of her letter, stressing numerous times that she had known nothing of her closest friends' decision to go public.

She disclosed a list of those she had discussed the 'private' letter with in the papers lodged with the High Court - two of her friends, Prince Harry, her mother Doria Ragland, the press team at Kensington Palace (KP), and her solicitor.

Her lawyers told the High Court she had told 'some of her friends' about the fact she had sent a letter, adding that she had also 'discussed the contents of the letter with her husband, her mother, Friends A and C, the KP Communications Team and her solicitor'.

Meghan insisted more than a dozen times in last week's legal document that she had no prior knowledge of her friends' interview with People.

She added that she was so uninvolved in 'the process of the People article' that she only found out about it on the day it was published'.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMib2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmRhaWx5bWFpbC5jby51ay9uZXdzL2FydGljbGUtODU3MTcyMy9NZWdoYW4tTWFya2xlLWxhdW5jaGVzLWJpZC1maXZlLWZyaWVuZHMtaWRlbnRpdGllcy1zZWNyZXQuaHRtbNIBc2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmRhaWx5bWFpbC5jby51ay9uZXdzL2FydGljbGUtODU3MTcyMy9hbXAvTWVnaGFuLU1hcmtsZS1sYXVuY2hlcy1iaWQtZml2ZS1mcmllbmRzLWlkZW50aXRpZXMtc2VjcmV0Lmh0bWw?oc=5

2020-07-29 14:44:36Z
52780959812618

Forcing Meghan to name five of her friends in court battle 'unacceptable price to pay' - lawyer - Sky News

The Duchess of Sussex has applied to the High Court to stop The Mail and Mail on Sunday from being able to reveal the names of five of her friends who spoke anonymously to a US magazine about the bullying she said she has faced.

The women's names were given to the judge and to the newspapers for its defence, confidentially, by the duchess earlier this month as part of her ongoing lawsuit against the papers' publisher, Associated Newspapers (ANL).

At a preliminary hearing on Wednesday, Meghan's barrister Justin Rushbrooke QC said forcing the Duchess of Sussex to make public the identities of her five friends was "an unacceptable price to pay" for pursuing her legal action against ANL.

He said Meghan's five friends were entitled to "a very high level of super-charged right of confidentiality".

Royal Family — Harry and Meghan book reveals royal rift

Meghan is suing ANL over five articles, two in the Mail on Sunday and three on MailOnline, which were published in February 2019 and reproduced sections of a handwritten note she sent to her estranged father Thomas Markle, 75, in August 2018.

Lawyers for the duchess claim the story breached her privacy.

ANL claims it only included the letter because it had already been referenced by Meghan's friends in an interview with People magazine in the US, published in February last year.

A confidante told the American publication about its content: "She's like 'Dad, I'm so heartbroken. I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimising me through the media so we can repair our relationship'."

Associated Newspapers said in a defence court document: "Information in the People interview about the claimant's relationship and dealings with her father, including the existence of the letter and a description of its contents and the claimant's father's letter in response, could only have come (directly or indirectly) from the claimant."

It added that Mr Markle had revealed the letter to correct the "false" impression Meghan's friends had given about his actions in their interview.

The duchess's five friends who gave the People interview are identified only as A-E in court documents.

Her legal team has claimed in court documents that she did not know the People magazine article was due to appear, would not have agreed to the letter's contents being revealed, and after its publication she phoned friend A to express "her distress".

Mr Rushbrooke said "there is ample evidence before the court" to support the duchess's application to maintain the anonymity of her five friends.

He added that one of the five, known only as friend B, had provided a witness statement to the court in support of the application.

Mr Rushbrooke said Friend B was "the best possible person" to provide evidence as "she is the one who actually orchestrated the interviews".

He told the court: "These were confidential sources who gave the interviews on condition of anonymity."

Mr Rushbrooke also said: "The defendant, in its own coverage - going right back to the first article... that gave rise to this entire litigation - they themselves describe the interviews as anonymous."

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are claimed to have a tense relationship with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex — Meghan Markle allegedly called a 'showgirl'

In a witness statement submitted as part of the application, Meghan accused ANL of attempting to "create a circus and distract from the point of this case" to "evade accountability".

She said the women "made a choice on their own to speak anonymously with a US media outlet more than a year ago, to defend me from the bullying behaviour of Britain's tabloid media".

"Each of these women is a private citizen, young mother, and each has a basic right to privacy," she said, claiming the threat to expose them was "for no reason other than clickbait and commercial gain".

She said the move was "vicious" and one that "poses a threat to their emotional and mental well-being".

"The Mail on Sunday is playing a media game with real lives," she added.

Meghan reads to Archie as he turns one. Pic: Sussex Royal — Harry and Meghan sue over 'drone photos'

Antony White QC, representing ANL, told the court the five friends have already been identified in court papers.

He added: "The question is not 'should their identities be disclosed', that has happened, it is 'should they be anonymised in these proceedings?'"

Mr White said: "There is no proper evidential basis (for the application).

"There is no evidence at all from four of the five friends and the evidence from the fifth (friend B) has been shown to be unsatisfactory."

Earlier in the hearing, Mr Rushbrooke appeared to accidentally say the surname of one of the five friends.

Mr Justice Warby immediately directed that the individual's name was not to be reported.

He said he will give his decision on the duchess's application in writing at a later date.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMif2h0dHBzOi8vbmV3cy5za3kuY29tL3N0b3J5L2ZvcmNpbmctbWVnaGFuLXRvLW5hbWUtZml2ZS1vZi1oZXItZnJpZW5kcy1pbi1jb3VydC1iYXR0bGUtdW5hY2NlcHRhYmxlLXByaWNlLXRvLXBheS1sYXd5ZXItMTIwMzg0ODbSAYMBaHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLnNreS5jb20vc3RvcnkvYW1wL2ZvcmNpbmctbWVnaGFuLXRvLW5hbWUtZml2ZS1vZi1oZXItZnJpZW5kcy1pbi1jb3VydC1iYXR0bGUtdW5hY2NlcHRhYmxlLXByaWNlLXRvLXBheS1sYXd5ZXItMTIwMzg0ODY?oc=5

2020-07-29 12:11:42Z
52780959812618

Wiley permanently suspended by Twitter over anti-Semitism - BBC News

Grime artist Wiley has been permanently banned from Twitter, five days after posting anti-Semitic remarks.

It follows a 48-hour boycott of Twitter by many users over what they said had been an unacceptable delay in dealing with the offending tweets.

"We are sorry we did not move faster," Twitter said in a statement.

The escalation comes a day after Facebook and Instagram deleted the music star's accounts for "repeated violations" of their rules.

Twitter said it has taken a similar step because the artist had broken its "hateful conduct" policy.

The San Francisco-based firm had previously temporarily suspended Wiley and left many of his past tweets visible. But it said it had decided to now make the ban permanent, and wipe all his past posts from its platform "upon further consideration".

"We deeply respect the concerns shared by the Jewish community and online safety advocates," the statement said, promising to continue to tackle anti-Semitism.

Wiley's series of anti-Semitic tweets appeared on Friday night.

One tweet read: "I don't care about Hitler, I care about black people", and compared the Jewish community to the Ku Klux Klan.

The star, known as the "godfather of grime", was awarded an MBE for services to music in 2018.

But Twitter did not delete that or other tweets, or issue its first temporary ban, until later in the weekend.

Analysis

By Marianna Spring, specialist disinformation and social media reporter

The permanent suspension of the rapper's Facebook, Instagram and Twitter profiles has been widely welcomed.

However, it is emblematic of a slowness to act on hateful abuse, from social media sites. And many are asking why this took so long.

Time and time again, decisive action from social media sites over racist abuse, misinformation or hate speech has come only once comments have reached thousands of users.

What does it take for Twitter to act decisively on anti-Semitic abuse?

In this case it appears to be external pressure - the move comes after a boycott by users.

And it also seems to be dependent on what the other social media sites choose to do: Facebook moved to suspend Wiley's accounts yesterday, and then Twitter appeared to follow suit.

With the Stop Hate for Profit campaign ramping up pressure, and increased focus on the way social media sites tackle hate speech and misinformation, the spotlight will intensify on the actions of Twitter, Facebook and Google in these scenarios.

The delay in Twitter taking action prompted the 48-hour boycott of Twitter by many users - including celebrities and MPs - beginning on Monday morning. Organisers said the time reflected the "48 hours of pure race hate" they accuse Twitter of giving to Wiley.

On Tuesday, Facebook issued a ban after Wiley was discovered posting abusive material on his personal page using his real name, Richard Cowie.

Twitter followed suit on Wednesday, after what it said was a thorough investigation.

Despite the move, advocacy group the Board of Deputies of British Jews said both Twitter and Facebook had been slow to act, adding "it is just not good enough".

"Social media companies have not been strong or fast enough about tackling racism, misogyny or homophobia," it said in a statement.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism echoed that sentiment, writing that Twitter "has finally listened".

"The closure of Wiley's account is too little too late, but it is at least a start for this deeply irresponsible social network," it said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiLmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jby51ay9uZXdzL3RlY2hub2xvZ3ktNTM1ODE3NzHSATJodHRwczovL3d3dy5iYmMuY28udWsvbmV3cy9hbXAvdGVjaG5vbG9neS01MzU4MTc3MQ?oc=5

2020-07-29 11:50:48Z
52780950151575

Wiley permanently suspended by Twitter over anti-Semitism - BBC News

Grime artist Wiley has been permanently banned from Twitter, five days after posting anti-Semitic remarks.

It follows a 48-hour boycott of Twitter by many users over what they said had been an unacceptable delay in dealing with the offending tweets.

"We are sorry we did not move faster," Twitter said in a statement.

The escalation comes a day after Facebook and Instagram deleted the music star's accounts for "repeated violations" of their rules.

Twitter said it has taken a similar step because the artist had broken its "hateful conduct" policy.

"We deeply respect the concerns shared by the Jewish community and online safety advocates," the statement said, promising to continue to tackle anti-Semitism.

Wiley's first tweets appeared on Friday night.

One tweet read: "I don't care about Hitler, I care about black people", and compared the Jewish community to the Ku Klux Klan.