The media went into a frenzy this weekend when the bonny Prince Harry gave a huge Hurrumpf to the First Amendment. On a show appropriately called “the Armchair Expert,” Harry declared the First Amendment “bonkers” and expressed frustration of how it protects the media in its “feeding frenzy” over his life. Harry’s criticism of the First Amendment can be dismissed as the unfamiliarity of a royal refugee. However, it is actually far more serious than that. Harry and his American wife Meghan Markle have attacked media rights in England and succeeded under the laws of the United Kingdom. They are now joining a growing anti-free speech and free press movement in the United States.
It was a surprise for many to hear Harry lash out at the First Amendment. After all, Harry and Meghan are so woke, they are virtual insomniacs. However, that is the point. The First Amendment no longer holds the inviolate position it once did with the left. Indeed, the First Amendment is now often treated as a danger than a guarantee to a fair and just society. Experts have explained how to evade its limitations to silence others. They have found precisely what Harry discussed in the interview when he noted “you can find a loophole in anything.”
Democratic leaders now openly call for corporate censorship and banning of books and authors. Academics now join in the cancelling of colleagues who express dissenting views of subjects ranging from climate change to gender identification to racial justice. Thus, it is not as risky for the Harry to declare “I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers.” Rather, millions are likely to wait in rapt anticipation to hear more of what Prince Harry will say about correcting our Constitution.
What is missing in the coverage of this controversy is a far more serious context to Harry offering his “armchair expertise.” The United Kingdom has a strikingly different approach to free speech and particularly to press freedom. The British media are subject to harsh laws giving the government far greater powers to control or punish publications. Fortunately, the government has been largely benign in the use of such laws but there are far greater restrictions placed on British media than their American cousins. (For full disclosure, I was until a few months ago a legal analyst for the BBC).
One American who seems to have embraced the more restrictive laws on expression and the media is Meghan Markle. Recently, Piers Morgan, the former co-host of ITV’s “Good Morning Britain, was canned after he committed the unpardonable sin of declaring on air that he didn’t believe a word of what Markle told Oprah in her now famous interview. Markle and others reported TIV and Morgan to United Kingdom’s “Ofcom,” or Office of Communications, for violation of its “harm and offense rules.” Ofcom enforces a chilling set of regulations that allows for severe penalties for expressing any views deemed “harmful or offensive” or assertions that could “materially mislead” others.
Markle also recently prevailed in a highly damaging court victory against the press. The case involved the publication of details from a letter that Meghan wrote to her estranged father after she married Prince Harry in 2018. She sued Associated Newspapers, which publishes U.K. tabloids like the Daily Mail, MailOnline and the Mail on Sunday for disclosing her private affairs and for violating copyright protections over her letter. The lawsuit would have failed in the United States under the freedom afforded to the press, but prevailed in Great Britain. [There was a claim of copyright over the letter. It is possible for such a claim to be made under cases like the J.D. Salinger case in the United States but that case remains controversial. Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987) would collide in such a case with press freedoms more directly in this case in my view].
Under our tort for the public disclosure of embarrassing private facts has an exclusion for “newsworthy” stories. For example, in Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corp., 113 F.2d 806, 807 (2d Cir. 1940), the court rejected the privacy claim of a former child prodigy who sued after the New Yorker magazine ran a vicious and mocking account of his failure to reach the expectations of many. The court explained that “regrettably or not” such media coverage of public figures are protected and “it would be unwise for a court to bar their expression in the newspapers, books, and magazines of the day.”
Markle knew that such concerns are not paramount in Great Britain. In the ruling by London High Court Judge Mark Warby the court dismissed such concerns in finding for Markle. Keep in mind that this letter was given or leaked to the media – a common factor in some of our most important investigative journalistic works. While Meghan could accuse her father or others of a privacy violation, she went after the media and Judge Warby not only ruled in her favor but ruled against an appeal. He ordered the defendants to publish an account on the front page of their newspapers.
Markle rejoiced in the victory and declared “The world needs reliable, fact-checked, high-quality news . . . We all lose when misinformation sells more than truth, when moral exploitation sells more than decency, and when companies create their business model to profit from people’s pain.” What was particularly chilling was how Meghan assured all of her following that this was a triumph for them: “I share this victory with each of you—because we all deserve justice and truth, and we all deserve better.”
What Harry and Meghan achieved in the challenge was a direct assault on core press freedoms. They then sought to get millions to cheer them for the effort. What is worrisome is that many did.
That is why the “bonkers” interview with Harry is not just some tabloid tripe. Harry was raised in a system that rejects core press freedoms and Meghan is an enthusiastic convert to that system. It is ironic that they left what Harry described as the “toxic” media environment of Great Britain to come to a country with greater protections for the press. However, the couple took little time in seeking to challenge the core values of the free press in this county. Now that is not just bonkers, it is bollocks.
This column also appeared on Fox.com
Prince Harry needs the protection of Salvatore “Sammy The Bull Gravano”.
Prince Harry, we all know now you got a brain.
You are correct to note the current move to use private companies to censor. But you don’t explain that this is possible only because conservatives under the intellectual sway of their heroes such as Friedman and Bork, eviscerated anti-trust laws in the 1980s-90s-2000s. There are now only a handful of publishers and distributors and channels, and in some fields one or two dominant players. Makes censorship by corporation easy compared to dozens of actors of a wide range of interests.
Imagine what book publishing would have been like for the last 30 years if Regnery did not exist. It is THAT close.
This is a young man who lost his mother due to harassment by the papparazzi at a young age. She was hounded, followed, and photographed everywhere she went, because of the big money in getting just the right photo. The media, especially the British media, went after Meghan from the moment it was learned that they were seriously dating. By “went after”, I mean, following her everywhere she went, hounding her, constantly criticizing everything she ever did during her lifetime, interviewing anyone they could locate who ever knew her, and speculating about her family relationships, especially as to her father from whom she was estranged. There should be no “freedom of the press right” to publish a stolen letter–just like Wikileaks and Assange should be prosecuted for publishing information they wrongfully obtained.
The main reasons the British press went after her are because: 1. she is not British; 2. she has some black heritage; 3. she had been previously married (that fact didn’t bother them as much about Camilla Parker Bowles, to whom they have warmed as Elizabeth gets closer to death every day); 4. She was independently financially secure, having established a successful acting career after graduating from Northwestern University; 5. perhaps the biggest reason: she will always outshine and garner more attention than Kate Middleton because she is petite, better-looking, more-accomplished and more interesting. Outshining the mother of a future king in Britain is akin to a capital offense. Harry and Meghan could never be happy in Britain for these reasons.
Meghan Markle is not a bad person, and she and Harry are happy together, but such stories do not sell. Harry is not an American. He deserves to be cut some slack. His life has been impacted by “the press” every day since his birth, and media have hurt those whom he loves by their conduct. “Core press freedoms” are not the issue here, any more than the various court orders against, inter alia, Ron Gallela, who made Jackie Kennedy’s life pure hell, even going so far as to pose as a Greek sailor to get close to Onassis. Then, there are the topless photos of Middleton taken by a telephoto lens from a long distance away when she was sunbathing on vacation in France. British courts ordered that the photos could not be published. The real question is what did the framers of the Constitution have in mind under the rubric of “freedom of the press”? Was it publishing stolen letters, hacked emails, photos taken with a telephoto lens, following someone everywhere they go? I don’t think so.
Diana was the architect of most of her problems. You reap what you sow.
Cindy:
Amen. Secular saints have feet of clay mostly – even if they are covered by Manolo Blahniks or Jimmy Choos.
😉
It takes a special kind of ignoramus cruelty to blame Diana for the suffering she underwent. She was a naive 19 year old. She barely got through the British equivalent of high school, and was working at a day care center. The palace was looking for someone of upper class lineage with no baggage and who was a virgin. In fact, she had to undergo a GYN exam to confirm her virginity before the wedding. When Charles proposed to her, and then didn’t even contact her for 6 weeks or so, Camilla didn’t wait around–she started dating and got married. And, she wasn’t a virgin, either. Diana actually believed Charles loved her–at least for awhile. The truth slowly sunk in when she discovered he was contacting Camilla even during their honeymoon–expressing the wish that he could be a tampon and live in her vagina. All they wanted from her was “an heir and a spare”, and once she gave them that, they were done with her. In fact, when Charles was on military assignment and she was at the palace while Elizabeth and Phillip were home, they wouldn’t even eat dinner with her. She was stuck in her room, alone. She became depressed and finally mustered enough courage to divorce Charles and define her own life. What “problems” did she “architect”?
Natch……….As always, your keen insights and opinions mirror those of the “ladies” on “The View:”
But, you haven’t identified the problems she was the “architect” of or how she caused them. Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks on me and “The View”, which I don’t watch. That’s one reason why I don’t respect people like you.
Natch…….I’m no doctor, but you are in serious need of a Blah-blahlogist.
Snappy retort, but you still haven’t explained Diana was the architect of her own problems.
Ahh.. to be born a “prince” and treated like “royalty” his whole life, and to have a net worth of $60 million having never really having a job. No wonder he knows so much more than us pathetic plebeians.
They are inbred too
What would we do without or betters?
You don’t really know much about Harry, now do you? He has said, many times, that he didn’t ask to be born into the royal family, and being a member of “the firm”, as he calls it, has brought him a lot of pain. And, consider this: it’s because he was born after his brother, who had children, so Harry’s not really in line for the throne. And, BTW, he was stripped of everything when he decided to move to America, including various military honors, income and security. But for money left him by Diana, he would have been destitute. Also, Tyler Perry stepped in to help with security because of death threats when the royal family wouldn’t help.
“He has said, many times, that he didn’t ask to be born into the royal family, and being a member of “the firm”, as he calls it, has brought him a lot of pain.”
————-
Boo hoo for Harry. None of us “asked to be born into” whatever family and circumstances we find ourselves in. You play the hand you are dealt in life.
Quit yer whining, Harry. You were born into privilege and you are living a life of enormous privilege. Fame and fortune is a blessing. With all blessings come the curses. We all must bear our burdens and blessings in life. But the two of them whine and complain about how ‘hard’ life has been for him. It’s tiresome.
For someone who whines about all the pain being in the royal family ‘zoo’ has brought him, he sure keeps himself in the public sphere going around talking about his emotional pain, airing his private family laundry, and being paid a cool million for every talk he gives.
Harry understands that the press attention they complain about is something they both need, and actively seek out, because it serves their own purposes. They need the press more than the press needs them.
Stop buying into their victimy poor-me stories. That is exactly what they are cashing in on, is it not? They were paid for the Oprah interview to tell the world how victimized they both are. Each talk Harry gives is a paycheck for him. It is how he is making his living, essentially. What a gig.
Meghan wrote a children’s book. She could have used her name: Meghan Markle. Instead she went only by the title gifted to her by the Queen: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
Why use a royal title when you want nothing to do wtih the ‘royals’ and the ‘firm’ and that racist ‘institution’ that so harmed and victimized you, Meghan?
Because Meghan is a social-climbing opportunist of the worst sort.
All the things you dumbass Trumpsters complain about are based on Harry’s “privilege” as a member of the royal family. He didn’t choose to be a member of the royal family and doesn’t want the “privileges” that go along with it. These “privileges” include losing his mother in a high-speed chase by the papparazzi and his wife being endlessly hounded by the paps and accused of the same sorts of lies you accuse her of. Meghan was independently successful before she met Harry. She not only isn’t an “opportunist” or “social climber”, she didn’t really want anything to do with the royals, other than to behave appropriately as Harry’s wife. So, she started wearing the dumb hats and fascinators. In fact, other women Harry dated for a long time didn’t want to be part of the dog and pony show, either–i.e., Chelsy Davy whom he dated for years. Harry invited Meghan to lunch one day, and enroute she found out that they would be lunching with the Queen. Harry told her to be sure to curtsy. She didn’t even know how to do this, and the entire affair was uncomfortable. If she was a social climbing opportunist, she would have been ready to curtsy and anxious to rub elbows with the Queen, but she wasn’t. She didn’t need any of these people for affirmation, wealth or attention, because she already had these things
Nobody chooses their lot in life. You play the cards you are dealt. Harry was born into privilege and currently lives in a $14 million mansion amongst the rich and famous in wealthy Montecito, CA.
He is paid a million or more a pop when he gives a ‘talk,’ What does he ‘talk’ about? He’s not particulary smart, nor expert in any subject, but he is still paid a cool million each time he ‘talks.’ Why? Because he’s a prince. Oh but he wouldn’t choose that life for himself or wish it upon anyone else.
Really Harry? You choose to keep talking about it. Especially if you pay him to talk about what a royal pain his life was. Oh the suffering he continues to endure.
Meghan was an unknown C list actress working her way up the social circuit. Meghan was a known social climber working her way up the ladder. She even told friends she wanted to date a Brit. She worked her connections and and voila, she was introduced to a prince with whom she would now have a platform, a voice she could use to “change the world.”
She had zero understanding of her role within the royal family. She made it about her. What she wanted to do with ‘her platform.’ Her voice. Her, her, her, all about her. That’s not how it works.
But now they live in America. They have their “platform” to speak about whatever they choose. For now, they choose to complain about how hard it is to be them.
This is the hallmark of a Trumpster disciple: irrational hate of people of whom you are jealous, and for petty reasons, always questioning their motivations in a negative way. Throw in race, as in the case of Meghan, and it really fires you up. Megan did just fine as an actor–she had a major role in “Suits”, and was a cast member on “Let’s Make a Deal”. She did this on her own. If people want to pay them for interviews, fine, but how is that any of your business? Don’t watch if you aren’t interested in what they have to say. What is the inherent merit of the royals, anyway? Elizabeth wouldn’t be Queen but for her uncle’s abdication of the throne so that he could marry the woman he loved, who happened to be a twice-divorced American. You wouldn’t even believe the hateful and untruthful sorts of accusations lodged against Wallis Simpson, including claims that she had a penis, was really an hermaphrodite, that Edward was a freak because he liked it both ways, etc.. In truth, Edward was a Nazi sympathizer and was very shallow and arrogant. Why should Edward have been forced to abdicate in the first place? He wouldn’t have to nowadays. Stupid rules.
What was Meghan’s “role within the royal family”, and how did she make it “about her”? She was always going to garner attention because she is more attractive than Middleton, is an American, was an actress, and independently accomplished. So the paps wrote constantly about her, but that was not because she wanted them to. She didn’t seek out publicity. You are jealous of her and a racist, and those are your issues with her. She and Harry tried for awhile to find happiness in the U.K., but they realized that this was not possible, so they forged their own path.
I don’t ‘hate’ anyone. I am sharing my opinion and observations. Just like you are. You, however, seethe with hatred for Trump supporters. Who mentioned Trump? You did.
“You are jealous of her and a racist, and those are your issues with her.”
No, those are your issues with her. You brought race into it, not I. No one would even know she was black if she didn’t make an issue of it. Her blackness is the best part of her gig. She’s always got that race card to throw down. Or the woman card. It’s about raaaciiiiism! It’s misogyny! How convenient.
Meghan thought being a royal meant she had a platform for the issues that were important to her. When she realized she would be in a supporting role, she came up with her plan: Get out. Go to America. Back to Los Angeles. That is where she and Harry can be free to sell their wares as they see fit. That is where Meghan can get political and share her politcal views with the world -which was forbidden in the politically neutral Royal Family. That is where Meghan can speak on any subject she likes. No rules, no protocol to hold her back. You know, like the mermaid or whatever it was Meghan compared herself to — she got “her” voice back!
In Los Angeles, Meghan can do what she wants now. She can call herself a Duchess and use her royal title when it suits her — even though they want nothing to do with the royal family and just ask for their privacy to live their lives in peace, like normal people.
Such hogwash. They are merchandizing themselves. They are for sale, for hire. Netflix deals, what else, taking all offers, who’s next?
What’s their selling point? Cashing in on being a Prince and a Duchess. Nothing more.
So this is the family and identity that poor Harry finds so painful, the royal life he didn’t choose?
But this is how they sell their wares and cash-in now.
Harry and Meg, we are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex doncha know. YOU should pay for what we have to say! YOU should listen to us! Why? Because we are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
They are nothing more than a likeable, but not very bright Prince, and his C-list unknown actress social-climbing wife.
They make sure they are in the news at least several times a month. Harry is on this show, that interview, doing that talk over there, saying inflammatory things about his family that he knows will make news.
Meghan is writes a schlocky children’s book and uses her title to sell the book. You know, the “Duchess” who fled the royal ‘firm’ wanting to forge a path on their own, making their own way in the world, having nothing to do with the Royal Family. Except when it suits her. (pun intended)
She’s an operator. She’s a C-lister that always dreamed of being A-list. Now she is. Clooney, Oprah, Michelle and Barack, are now her ‘friends.’ She uses them. They use her. Mission accomplished.
Now please just leave them alone already. Can’t you see they are just trying to live their lives out of the press, out of the limelight, out of the press?
Sheesh.
No one is falling for it any more. Only you Natacha. Only you. And that makes you the dumbass. 🙂
You sound just like Karen S. I can tell Trumpsters by their writing and their negative attitudes about people without being able to articulate any factual support. This is because they are rabid followers of Hannity, Tucker, Ingraham, Levin, et al, and the insults and assumptions you Trumpsters throw out sound just like what you heard on Hannity. And, those insults ARE motivated by race and jealousy.
Megan isn’t throwing down any cards. She doesn’t need to. Where the hell do you get off claiming to know what Megan thinks or feels or her alleged “social climbing” plot to use the royal family? Again, you sound just like Karen S., the know it all.
You always sound like a troll to me. You’re comments are bereft of either fact or reasonable analysis. One can only assume you just enjoy spewing nonsense that you expect will annoy “trumpsters”. What were all of these people before Donald Trump? Sean Hannity was a very successful conservative commentator long before Trump.
Why doesn’t Harry and Meghan just ride off into the sunset and just get out of our faces. I suppose a book tour is next and paid appearances on the talk show circuit. Again, they are a couple of grifters.
Prince Harry is the wokiest of the woke, his wokeness woke me up to being woker.
Go to ‘The Onion’ and browse the headlines. Most of the “satirical” articles can pass for real-life news in this modern America and no one would blink an eye, whereas five years ago we’d have laughed our asses off at how ridiculous they are… and think to ourselves “where do they come up with these ideas for such cockamamie stories!”…
🙂 Real-life news has made The Babylon Bee sort of moot as well. If they started publishing straight news, then that would sadly be considered parody.
Prince Ginger believes that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is a legitimate basis for a system of government.
They would do well to go live an honest-to-goodness private life. While there are some public figures with sense and wisdom, there are others…oy.
“How dreary—to be—Somebody!
How public—like a Frog—
To tell one’s name—the livelong June—
To an admiring Bog!”
One thing you can count on when reading a Harry interview: it won’t have you reaching for a thesaurus.
As our labrador trainer used to say about the breed: These are not deep thinkers.
Actually, what’s happening in this country is from the top down. This administration (small “a”) will not call a group, who terrorized the East Coast of America by compromising the control of one of our major energy pipelines, a terrorist group. It suits their interests. They will, however, make a continuous push (by an idiot of a Homeland Security Secretary) to work to perpetuate the fears of our public to an ever increasing “threat” of “domestic terrorism.” So much that they’ll begin an internal monitoring of American Citizens, who are getting truly fed up with their illegalities (FISA), core insults, threats to our basic Constitutional Rights, and are restlessly shoring up Federalism in ways not ever seen since the beginnings Our Nation. What they fail to recognize is that this purposeful suppression, insults, and push to quell expression of rights is forcing Americans to mistrust our system of government. It is essentially backfiring and they don’t care nor wish to recognize they don’t have power over our citizenship. They have consciously tried to seize power. Yet they fail to remember the power comes from the Constitution. George Washington is probably rolling over in his grave because of their anti-humble nature as elected officials. Taboo alert: January 6th vilifies one person for their political needs (this 9/11 style commission will be a political joke) and will give them “cause” to continue declaring “domestic terrorism” their main priority. Trump didn’t stir the anger of this mob, it was four years of abuse that did. This mob was the wrong personification of legitimate anger and frustration with the break down of society (but last years riots are just “protests”) When Trump said there are good people on both sides…wouldn’t that have been proper recognition of the numbers of good Americans throughout our society if it came from the mouth of, let’s say, Jimmy Carter? There has been a wave that has beset this country that demonizes common citizens who want government off their backs. Suppression of free speech is just the tip of the iceberg. We don’t need lectures from a, supposedly, royal prince to define what we cast off in 1776. Prediction: their are good people on both sides and they will surprisingly unite when our government (small g) continues down this path. The frustration is building…but the tea has not been dumped. Royals like this have no place in this Constitutional Republic. They are welcomed with open arms, but it isn’t about themselves, and Harry, of all people, should brush up on our history. I thought they dumped the royal titles and want to live life here in the United States? Free speech, along with all our Constitutional rights, will remain. People, on “both sides” ought to get use to it! (Actually, there isn’t two sides, just the Constitution)
Harry’s name is really spelled Hairy. His dad was a tree trimmer and was not married to his mom.
We don’t need to hear about the Royal family on this blog.
Prince Harry has been watching too many battle scenes. Including “The Last of the Mohicans” surrender scene.
In this episode, French & British generals negotiate a peaceful surrender in New York. But the Iroquois Indians setup an ambush.
Don’t worry sweet, tolerant lefties, you’ll get your “hate speech” laws here soon enough! And you’ll call anyone who supports a traditional view of the 1st Amendment a “nazi” and terrorist. JT – admire your work and hate to tell you this, but you otherwise liberal stances on issues will not save you.
Harry is a privileged twit who is using his publicity to publicly indulge his need for therapy.
That has led him to burn bridges in England. Now he is doing the same here.
The Windsor men are famously guided by their schlongs (politely known as “pussyhounds”); look at the Duke of Windsor, Prince Charles, and Harry’s uncle Edward.
Harry found a gold digger who is capitalizing on his weakness.
Bottom line, a pathetic excuse of a man.
Don’t you mean Harry’s uncle ANDREW?
“Open up those libel laws!”
Which constantly whining, wannabe tyrant said that?
Republican government can die in darkness and in private censorship by the MSM, big tech, and the excessively woke.
Harry got Diana’s brain. That’s my diagnosis.
I’m sorry. I thought Diana was sweet and beautiful, but as time went by, I became less enthralled with her deification. She was unstable and unreliable, and so is Harry.
Diana barely got through high school. She was naive and unsophisticated, but after she freed herself from “the firm”, she used her celebrity to all attention to humanitarian issues like AIDS and buried land mines. She was not “unstable”–she was depressed for awhile after learning that Charles never really loved her, and only married her to produce “an heir and a spare”, all the while still carrying on with Camilla. She shook off the depression and made a reputation for herself as a humanitarian.
That would be “bollocks”.
Marked free from caring what British royalty think or say since July 4, 1776.
EM – well, that’s the best comment of the day.