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
