(11m) Prince Harry and Meghan Markle versus the tabloids
What was to be expected that may happen one day: a war against the tabloids by Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle. Indeed, Prince Harry never forgot how the media was responsible for the dead of his mother and thus now he wants to protect his wife and child against the gossip media, certainly because part of the media is considered as hostile towards his dark-skinned wife who decided to have a break away from the media during her pregnancy as is her right to do. He's not the only person who is fed up with the intrusion of privacy by part of the media, a media that has been warned since years they are overstepping lines. And thus, as phone hacking is illegal without a court order, I think they should be able to win that part if they can proof part of the media hacked them. Of course, it will not make them popular with the media.
However, after reading this article whereby I understand her father went to the media with the letter she wrote, it seems to suggest the real war is between the Duchess and her father. Maybe she should stop any contact with him when she thinks he can't stop speaking with the media about her and her family. Indeed, being born into a royal family or becoming part of it is I think not a fairy tale.
Thus, some questions: when someone sends a letter or email to someone else and the latter wants to make this public, can this be done? This letter, is this from her father who received it because she sent it to him or remains the letter hers? If it became his as she decided to send it away to her father than I think he can release it if he wishes to do. If the letter remains her (intellectual) property than her father had to ask permission to make it public although he can say she should stop sending letters as that equals harassment. But, if the content can't be released because the letter is still hers, than what with biographies about other people that base their stories often on private letters, emails and conversations?
Even further: what when someone buys a painting made by an artist or an historic building, can it be destroyed or changed by the new owner? I think not always such as when it is considered of interest to the general public now and in the future.
Similar with computer programs that you no longer buy but rent at prices that are out of proportion such as 10€ per month for programs of 120€ per year so each year you "buy" a new program, even when you don't use any novelties such as the possibility to use the program on a product you don't own. And thus, is the product yours or remains it property of the company that developed it, even when you no longer want updates.
According to certain media, the law case against part of the media seems to anger family members and thus cause divisions within the royal family although towards the outside world they continue as a happy family. If true, how did the media gather this information? An insider who can't stay silent? A hacker? An organised leak? Still, I think Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are right, certainly concerning the hacking of voicemails, that certainly wealthy and powerful people can't accept this happens with them and thus they should go to the court to demand actions to stop this and punish those who do this as it is illegal and against human right of privacy. Thus, Prince Charles should be proud what his son and daughter-in-law do to stop future harassment by part of the media. Indeed, media needs to respect rules if it wants to remain free from interference.
However, after reading this article whereby I understand her father went to the media with the letter she wrote, it seems to suggest the real war is between the Duchess and her father. Maybe she should stop any contact with him when she thinks he can't stop speaking with the media about her and her family. Indeed, being born into a royal family or becoming part of it is I think not a fairy tale.
Thus, some questions: when someone sends a letter or email to someone else and the latter wants to make this public, can this be done? This letter, is this from her father who received it because she sent it to him or remains the letter hers? If it became his as she decided to send it away to her father than I think he can release it if he wishes to do. If the letter remains her (intellectual) property than her father had to ask permission to make it public although he can say she should stop sending letters as that equals harassment. But, if the content can't be released because the letter is still hers, than what with biographies about other people that base their stories often on private letters, emails and conversations?
Even further: what when someone buys a painting made by an artist or an historic building, can it be destroyed or changed by the new owner? I think not always such as when it is considered of interest to the general public now and in the future.
Similar with computer programs that you no longer buy but rent at prices that are out of proportion such as 10€ per month for programs of 120€ per year so each year you "buy" a new program, even when you don't use any novelties such as the possibility to use the program on a product you don't own. And thus, is the product yours or remains it property of the company that developed it, even when you no longer want updates.
According to certain media, the law case against part of the media seems to anger family members and thus cause divisions within the royal family although towards the outside world they continue as a happy family. If true, how did the media gather this information? An insider who can't stay silent? A hacker? An organised leak? Still, I think Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are right, certainly concerning the hacking of voicemails, that certainly wealthy and powerful people can't accept this happens with them and thus they should go to the court to demand actions to stop this and punish those who do this as it is illegal and against human right of privacy. Thus, Prince Charles should be proud what his son and daughter-in-law do to stop future harassment by part of the media. Indeed, media needs to respect rules if it wants to remain free from interference.
Comments