Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

McLibel Case

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: McLibel Case

#21

Post by makomk »

Causality1 wrote: post #2

"English libel defendants must prove that each statement is true" is one of those sentences that rock you for a moment and remind you that you really can't pretend that all Western Democracies are basically the same.

Hence this quote from media coverage at the time: "The McLibel case has achieved what many lawyers thought impossible: to lower further the reputation of our law of defamation in the minds of all right thinking people." English libel law already had quite the reputation even by the time of this case.

Re: McLibel Case

#22

Post by klyrs »

> [McDonalds] specified they would drop the case if Steel and Morris agreed to "stop criticising McDonald's".[15] Steel and Morris secretly recorded the meeting, in which McDonald's said the pair could criticise McDonald's privately to friends but must cease talking to the media or distributing leaflets. Steel and Morris wrote a letter in response saying they would agree to the terms if McDonald's ceased advertising its products and instead only recommended the restaurant privately to friends.

Brilliant :D

Re: McLibel Case

#23

Post by valuearb »

hjb wrote: post #3

There's a line in there that really stands out to me: >McDonald's spent several million pounds, while Steel and Morris spent £30,000; this disparity in funds meant Steel and Morris were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially witnesses from South America who were intended to support their claims about McDonald's activities in that continent's rainforests. It's pretty galling that the justice system…

What specific testimony could South American witnesses have given about McDonalds activities in the rainforest? It seems like a pretty big reach.

Re: McLibel Case

#24

Post by Hickfang »

grecy wrote: post #12
hjb wrote: post #3

There's a line in there that really stands out to me: >McDonald's spent several million pounds, while Steel and Morris spent £30,000; this disparity in funds meant Steel and Morris were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially witnesses from South America who were intended to support their claims about McDonald's activities in that continent's rainforests. It's pretty galling that the justice system…

> it's a bit tricky to see exactly how to fix this Put a hard limit on the amount of money that is allowed to be spent, and that limit is based on how much the less wealthy can spend. If the more wealthy wants to spend more, they can give money to the other side so they can spend equally huge amounts.

@grecy: “Put a hard limit on the amount of money that is allowed to be spent, and that limit is based on how much the less wealthy can spend.”

“If the more wealthy wants to spend more, they can give money to the other side so they can spend equally huge amounts.”

What was wrong with this comment?

Re: McLibel Case

#25

Post by vijayr02 »

hjb wrote: post #3

There's a line in there that really stands out to me: >McDonald's spent several million pounds, while Steel and Morris spent £30,000; this disparity in funds meant Steel and Morris were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially witnesses from South America who were intended to support their claims about McDonald's activities in that continent's rainforests. It's pretty galling that the justice system…

Check out the Bogolia section (number V) in https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-dif...

Re: McLibel Case

#26

Post by zimpenfish »

arooaroo wrote: post #4

There's a good doc on YouTube covering the case. The pressure looks immense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V58kK4r26yk Interesting aside: one of the pro bono lawyers was Keir Starmer, now Sir Keir Starmer who went on to become Director of Public Prosecutions, before entering politics, and recently elected Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. By all accounts he's showing up our utterly useless PM for the i…

> By all accounts he's showing up our utterly useless PM for the incompetent fool he is.

To be fair, that's not a plus point for Starmer since that's the lowest of low bars. I'd expect anyone capable of even the basest level of critical thinking and fact checking to wipe the floor with Johnson (and most of the Tory party.)

Re: McLibel Case

#27

Post by techbio »

jldugger wrote: post #18
crazygringo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if all statements are already known true to the court Can you expand on what that means? In my understanding, courts don't presumptively "already know" anything at all, except law and precedent. The whole point of a suit is that two parties are contesting knowledge, interpretation, or law. Even if a court's judge(s) suppose(s) something to be true, isn't the whole point that the defendent claims it to be false…

I believe the point OP is making is that you can be accused of libel for speaking the truth.

I think you mean convicted, anyone can be accused of anything at any time.
Post reply on HN