McLibel Case
en.wikipedia.org
McLibel Case
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: McLibel Case
#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.
Re: McLibel Case
#3There'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, which is a public tool, being gamed in this way by a party with vastly greater assets. It's a bit tricky to see exactly how to fix this, since you don't really want to just give each side a court-appointed lawyer: you really should get to pick your own lawyer. But what to do about the fact that you might want to pick an expensive lawyer?
It seems to me that one compromise would be to recognize that you can legitimately have a strong interest in the case having a just outcome, and thus want to spend more money fighting it, while at the same time not allowing one side to outspend the other.
One way to achieve this would be requiring that each side can only pay into a common pool of money, which is then split equally between the defence and prosecution.
The practical difficulty in implementing this is that a large company (e.g. McDonalds) will have in-house counsel who are not just hired for solely this case, and it would be hard to dis-entangle just how much of their salary should be counted as being for this particular case.
Re: McLibel Case
#4There'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 incompetent fool he is.
Re: McLibel Case
#5"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.
Yup, to the extent that the US decided that it needed to ensure that UK libel law could not be enforced against US writers: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10940211
Re: McLibel Case
#6There'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, since you don't really want to just give each side a court-appointed lawyer: you really should get to pick your own lawyer."
I don't know the details of it, but in England while you can pick your solicitor (the person you meet with out of court, who does research, puts together briefs, etc), you do not get to choose your Barrister (the person who represents you in court and argues before the judge. While this has changed to allow for some selection in the past few decades I believe you still don't have full choice.
Re: McLibel Case
#7There'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, since you don't really want to just give each side a court-appointed lawyer: you really should get to pick your own lawyer." I don't know the details of it, but in England while you can pick your solicitor (the person you meet with out of court, who does research, puts together briefs, etc), you do not get to choose your Barrister (the person who represents you in co…
This page seems to suggest that's mostly because the solicitor will have barristers they prefer to work with: https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/finding-...
Re: McLibel Case
#8There'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…
While on one hand I wish that they would have been better funded, the huge asymmetry in funding was a big reason they won their appeal, at least.
Re: McLibel Case
#9"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.
Yes. Worse, as I understand it, public figures may have lawful claims for defamation even if all statements are already known true to the court! This is a mind-boggling situation, and helps contextualize why the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommends that libel and slander be decriminalized. It makes the USA's defamation laws, SLAPP-happy as they are, look positively humane by comparison.
Re: McLibel Case
#10The great beauty of the anonymous Internet is that people now believe any libelous claims published on random sites. The democratization of propaganda has diminished the power of the press. Thankfully so, since the press has always been an instrument of propaganda.
Who are you going to stop, McDonalds? Reddit's /u/blazeit420? You don't know who he is. And a ban will just result in /u/cockscrew69 picking up the ball.