Day 012 - 18 Jul 94 - Page 41
1 having copied it and put it into our bundle. Let us use
the one at 157. It is the same date. This time the
2 letter is signed by Mr. Califano himself. We see that
from 163?
3 A. Yes, my recollection is the letter to Mr. Abrams was a
softer letter.
4
Q. Softer letter?
5 A. Softer letter than it was to the other two gentlemen
because of this prior relationship.
6
Q. You had had a good relationship with them?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. Let us use the one to the Attorney General of Texas,
particularly given the fact that Mr. Gardner has
9 volunteered himself as a witness to the defendants in this
case it may be more appropriate. May 4th 1987. "We are
10 writing on behalf of McDonald's" and so on.
11 " Your letter contends that an entire nationwide
advertising campaign that McDonald's began more than three
12 months ago is deceptive and must immediately be stopped.
That demand reflects a fundamental misreading of the
13 advertisements at issue and of the legal principles
applicable to advertising and commercial speech. The
14 threat to bring the power of the state to bear on
McDonald's in order to suppress an entire advertising
15 campaign is calculated to have a chilling effect on
McDonald's First Amendment rights and constitutes a
16 patently improper attempt to impose a prior restraint on
constitutionally protected speech".
17
Mr. Horwitz, again as a lawyer, the first amendment
18 protects freedom of speech, does it not?
A. It does.
19
Q. "Based on our review of the advertisements and the
20 applicable law" ----
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I notice you do not use the phrase "freedom
of speech"; you use constitutionally protected speech; it
22 may be more accurate?
A. That is correct.
23
MR. RAMPTON: Also, in passing, it is difficult, if not
24 impossible, under American law to get what we call an
injunction, an order, restraining speech or writing before
25 it is published, is that right?
A. That is correct; very difficult.
26
Q. "Based on our review of the advertisements and the
27 applicable law on deceptive advertising, we have concluded
that the advertising campaign is not deceptive, either
28 viewed as a whole or in any material part. Moreover, we
object to the manner in which your office is proceeding on
29 this matter.
30 1. The Advertising Campaign
