In Reply to: court is not your answer posted by Dan on May 02, 1996 at 19:08:22:
Dan wrote, inter alia:
> but with very little concern for any union issues as unions are
made up of nothing but muggers and thieves and should be abolished.
Nonsense! I represented over a thousand white-collar unionist for
6 years. Their faults were a tendency to kid themselves that they
were "middle-class" or "professional", but there wasn't a mugger or a thief among them.
>As radical as this sounds...
Nothing radical about those remarks. They are reactionary.
>We are the solution to your problems, not some court in London or anywhere else.
The problem is that it wasn't the decision of the McLibel Two to go
to court. They are the defendants, and if they didn't appear they'd
be in contempt and go to gaol.
>Play by their rules. Use your right to freedom of speech to appeal
>to the people, not the court. Hell, the courts only care about the
> law, not the rights of people.
The case is taking place in Britain - no right to freedom of speech, no First Amendment,
and indeed, no Constitution.
>Slamming McD's is easy, without any libel. Put your money
What money? The defendants are penniless!
>into educating the children, just like they do. Create positive
>ad campaigns to promote health to children and lead them away
>from fast food with inferences to McD's and BK. Go to schools and
>tell your story.
Hey, Dan, have you ever met a British headteacher?
I think that what Americans may not realise is that
libel law in this country is extremely restrictive and is NOT
balanced by any "right" to free speech. I very much doubt
that this case would have got to court in the United States.
For another example of different American and British attitudes
to free speech, think back to the "Spycatcher" case. Thatcher
stopped publication in Britain, and also tried actions in
Hong Kong and Australia. She didn't even try to stop
publication in the USA, where bookshops did a roaring trade
in mail order business to British customers!