Helen Steel and Dave Morris v. McDonald's Corp.
Significance: This case concerns the "lowliest"
of the print media: the pamphlet. It pits two individuals affiliated
with a nonprofit group against one of the largest corporations
in the world, McDonald's. There has been speculation that McDonald's
sought to make an example of them to silence many of its critics.
It is also interesting because it occurs against the backdrop
of British libel law. In Britain, libel defendants have the burden
of proof and the loser is liable for court costs and damages.
Furthermore, there is no First Amendment protection in Britain.
The McLibel Trial stems from the court battle between the
McDonald's Corporation and two supporters of London Greenpeace.
Helen Steel and Dave Morris were sued for libel when they distributed
a fact sheet written by London Greenpeace entitled "What's
Wrong With McDonald's? Everything They Don't Want You To Know".
The handout included a graphic that superimposed the words
"McDollars," "McGreedy," "McCancer,"
and "McMurder" over the McDonald's golden arches logo.
The pamphlet broadly attacked the corporation, accusing it of
exploiting children, promoting unhealthy diets as well as causing
environmental damage and engaging in ill treatment of animals.
Steel and Morris, along with three other people, were served
with Writs in 1990. The others decided to settle, and not to
seek a trial. Steel and Morris, however, went to trial and made
a counter-claim against McDonald's for indirectly accusing them
of libel in a pamphlet published by the corporation the night
before the trial began.
Because they had no legal aid, Steel and Morris represented
themselves. The defendants did show McDonald's: "exploits
children" with its advertising, falsely advertises its food
as nutritious, risks the health of long-term regular customers,
is "culpably responsible" for cruelty to animals and
is "strongly antipathetic" to unions and pay its workers
low wages. McDonald's had claimed that it had not falsely advertised
its food as nutritious, because they defined the word nutritious
as "containing nutrients." The court did not agree.
During trial, the corporation dropped its objections to statements
in the leaflet regarding its treatment of animals. However, on
June 19, 1997, the McDonald's corporation was awarded 60,000
pounds in lieu of damages for statements determined libelous.
(This is less than $100, 000 in U.S. Currency.) The defendants
could not prove that statements alleging the destruction of the
rainforest, the corporation's knowing exposure of customers to
food poisoning, and the corporation's involvement in starvation
in Third World countries were not libelous.
To see a copy of the original document "What's Wrong
With McDonald's?" go to: http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/factsheet.html
To see the currently distributed version go to : http://www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/translations/trans_uk.html
Sources:
McDonald's suffers from court grilling. Jackie Kemp, 25 June,
1995. http://host.envirolink.org/mcspotlight-na/media/press/grilling.html
The McLibel Case. http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/summaries/jun26.html
McJustice in Britain. D.D. Guttenplan. The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/issue/970714/0714gutt.htm
TrialNews 1. Jan 1995 http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/tnews1.html |
