Big Girls Don't Cry: Meghan Markle and Free Speech

Earlier this week the Nordic Council Literature prizes were given out in Sweden, and in the audience was Mette Frederiksen, the new prime minister of Denmark.

Mette is almost the same age as Meghan Markle - she is 41 - and she's accomplished a fair amount in her lifetime, most of it without draping herself over a man. Now she's the head of (small) country, in charge of its finances, its educational system, and its military.

When you're in the spotlight like that, not everyone is your fan.

In fact, the winner of the Nordic Council Literature prize was not Mette's fan.

"You are the head of a racist government of a racist country," Jonas Eika, a 28-year-old Danish writer, said in his speech to the woman sitting right in front of him. "You claim to care about children, but you tear families apart. You claim to be left wing, but your policies are no better than the policies of the right wing."

Was Mette pleased? Probably not. She didn't applaud when Jonas Eika's speech was over.

But did she go home and get a bunch of female MPs to sign a letter saying she'd been treated unfairly? Did she complain that Jonas Eika, a man, was abusing her because she was a woman?

No, because big girls who are in confident in their positions of power don't need to silence their opponents. And big girls who have chosen to be in public life realize they won't be universally liked.

When it comes to nonviolent dissent or even rudeness and insults, big girls don't cry.

Meghan needs protection

Which leads us back to Meghan Markle, who is often said to be politically ambitious herself.

At the very least, she wants her political ideas to be heard, much more than she wants to be loved, as she told a syncophantic reporter for The Telegraph this week. She regularly encourages other woman to "use their voice."

"Women don't need to find a voice, they have a voice, and they need to feel empowered to use it, and people need to be encouraged to listen," Meghan told last year's Royal Foundation Forum.

Since that forum in May, Meg has directed her team to repeatedly attack the media and the British public for being inadequately supportive of Meghan and her choices.

Apparently women should be "empowered to use their voices" as long as they say things Meghan agrees with.

Using her own voice

Meanwhile, Meg is empowered to use her own voice in many different ways. In addition to the usual Royal speeches (and writing some of Prince Harry's speeches), she has done exclusive print interviews and exclusive documentary interviews.

She is widely acknowledged as the writer behind the large blocks of text and squiffy grammar on the @SussexRoyal Instagram account.

In addition, Meghan uses her voice indirectly through proxies like her PR people, the "five friends" who spoke to People Magazine, sympathetic journalists like Omid Scobie, and Twitter accounts that may or may not be her.

Meghan is certainly getting a chance to have her say.

It distresses her, however, that other people are also getting to have their say, particularly when they say the wrong things, at least from Meghan's point of view.

Bullying versus dissent

Bullying exists, and it is devastating for its victims.

Part of the definition of bullying, however, is that the bully must have more power than his or her victim - the physical strength of the playground lout, or the economic strength of the vicious boss or co-workers.

It is hard to argue that the members of the public who express their dislike for Meghan (and that is whom she is really going after with her suit against the 'bullying' media, the tens of thousands of Daily Mail commenters who openly detest her) really have more power than she does.

The elderly female bloggers who were "doxxed" at Meghan's prompting last year certainly weren't part of any power structure.

Being disagreed with and disliked is part of life for people who choose to be in the public eye. As long as physical violence, stalking, or unauthorized medical or intimate photo release is not present or threatened, it's very hard for a self-promoted celebrity to justifably claim bullying.

Meghan won't be quiet

The great irony of Meghan trying to silence her critics is that there is little chance that she, personally, will ever be quiet.

No doubt when her divorce settlement comes through, it will come with the form of an "ironclad" non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.

But NDAs aren't as powerful as they once were; plaintiffs suing for transgression of NDAs are being required to show real monetary damage from the information disclosed, for example. Could the British Royal Family meet that level of proof?

NDAs are also being put aside for social justic reasons: NBC, for example, recently released all its employees from their NDAs to allow them to discuss sexual harassment they may have been subject to at the company, and FoxNews employees are seeking a similar release.

Releasing damaging material anonymously

All an NDA can do is provide a penalty after information is released - but it can't prevent the release of the information, particularly through anonymous sources.

Meghan does love to imitate Diana, Princess of Wales - who released enormous amounts of damaging information "anonymously" via author Andrew Morton.

Another strategy might be to release damaging information online through one of her shell accounts, have a few confederates retweet or share it, and then claim the information was already public when confirming it in person.

(The William and Rose rumors may have been a dry run for this tactic.)

At any rate, free speech is a right Meghan intends to make full use of, and no doubt hopes she can profit from.

She's less enthusiastic about free speech rights for anybody else.