Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 29


     
     1        case is vitally important.  The purpose of the law of libel
     2        should not be to reward wealthy organisations who are quite
     3        able to protect themselves and unable to show loss,
     4        particularly when such reward is at the expense of
     5        impecunious litigants in person.
     6
     7        No 14.  The Defendants further submit that much of what is
     8        complained about in the fact sheet is satirical/political
     9        in content or context, and such speech ought to be afforded
    10        special protection either because (in relation to satirical
    11        speech) such speech is by its very nature less likely to
    12        cause harm to the trading reputation of a major and global
    13        multi-national, or because (in relation to political
    14        speech) it goes to the heart of open discussion in a
    15        democracy.
    16
    17        No 15.  Moreover, the First Plaintiff and an American
    18        Corporation would not have had the benefit of such strict
    19        libel laws had it commenced proceedings in the US, and it
    20        should be noted that I think in this case evidence was
    21        given, I think by Mr. Preston, that the first copy of the
    22        fact sheet that he saw actually came from the USA, was sent
    23        over by somebody who had obtained it in the USA.
    24
    25        The preeminence given to free speech in the US should be
    26        adopted by this court.  In any event the Defendants
    27        question whether the First Plaintiff has any reputation in
    28        the UK at all.
    29
    30   MR. MORRIS:  I do not think -- we have not enclosed an appendix
    31        there.  It was only a very short thing.  I was going to say
    32        it eventually.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You said something about it in your
    35        submissions anyway.
    36
    37   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  I may just touch on it very briefly a bit
    38        later on, I mean.
    39
    40   MS. STEEL:  I would say any individual reputation -- I want to
    41        come back to their reputation and the difference between
    42        the two later on, which is in towards the end of this
    43        document.  I may be saying it then.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL: If you are debating who says what, I suggest
    46        you let Ms. Steel finish this and then you can sort out who
    47        speaks next on what topic.
    48
    49   MS. STEEL:   We were debating what we were saying.
    50
    51   MR. MORRIS:  And we were saying!
    52
    53   MS. STEEL:   Number 16: finally, under framework, the Defendants
    54        make the following claims: (A) that the qualified privilege
    55        ought to attach to the leaflet complained about because it
    56        is a contribution to an on-going debate about the power and
    57        responsibility of powerful multi-nationals in society.
    58        Such matters are clearly of public concern and any
    59        restriction on open discussion of such matters is
    60        intolerable in the civilised society.

Prev Next Index