Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 45


     
     1
     2   MR. MORRIS:  Right.  I think, first of all, the first page with
     3        the cartoon on.  The first comment is the word "wrong",
     4        which is a value judgment about McDonald's. "What's wrong
     5        with McDonald's?".  The cartoon is a comment, which is the
     6        face behind the mask.  I am going to go through this as
     7        briefly as I can because if you turn over the page all the
     8        banner headings in the fact sheet are comment.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Which do you mean by the 'banner headings'?
    11
    12   MR. MORRIS:  The McDollars, McGreedy, McCancer, McMurder,
    13        McDisease, McProfits.  We argue, of course, that they have
    14        no relevance in terms of context.  They are just satirical
    15        headings, obliquely related to some of the matters, you
    16        know, or impressions given in the fact sheet, but if they
    17        are going to be given any credence as part of the-----
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Fair comment only arises in relation to a
    20        defamatory matter which is alleged to be comment rather
    21        than statement of fact.  So, if you say it is not
    22        defamatory it does not matter whether it says 'statement of
    23        fact' or 'a comment', it is just not relevant to a
    24        defamation action.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  Obviously, we have argued this before, that, you
    27        know, satire, for example, the cartoons and the satirical
    28        headings should be protected speech and should not be taken
    29        into consideration in terms of the relationship with the
    30        rest of the text.  But because in your nutrition ruling you
    31        have used that context to change the meaning of the
    32        specific words in the text, then, because of that, we argue
    33        that if that exercise is going to be done again then all
    34        the satirical headings and cartoons are comment rather than
    35        statements of fact.  For example...  Well, all of those
    36        headings, yes.
    37
    38        If I can just go through it as quickly as I can.  The third
    39        paragraph, 'stupid advertising, consumerist hype'; that is
    40        clearly comment.  The end of that paragraph, 'something is
    41        seriously wrong'; that is comment.  The first heading,
    42        'what is the connection between McDonald's and starvation
    43        in the Third World?' We say that the relationship between
    44        McDonald's and starvation there, the connection, is a
    45        comment which would be something that could be ascertained,
    46        or could be inferred, honestly from the matters in the
    47        text.
    48
    49        The next thing is 'investments in vast tracts of land'.
    50        The word 'investments' is clearly, we believe, a comment.
    51        It is a conclusion based upon the other matters, which is
    52        that they use obviously...  Well, we say it is either a
    53        fact that the cattle are the investments but if the cattle
    54        deem not to be investments that are destined for McDonald's
    55        then it is certainly a comment that someone could honestly
    56        conclude.  Especially as McDonald's have taken
    57        responsibility for that supply chain.  And that is really
    58        what it is saying, that McDonald's are responsible.
    59
    60        Mr. Rampton says in his submission, "it is not defamatory

Prev Next Index