 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:24
|
|
Hello. And welcome. To McSpotlight. The biggest, loudest, most red, most read Anti-McDonald's extravaganza the world has ever seen. Anything you could possibly want to know about McDonald's or McLibel nestles somewhere in our 21,000 files. Don't get us wrong, though, we're not telling you to give up your Big Macs. We just provide the info for you to judge for yourself.
whodunnit McSpotlight is constructed by the McInformation Network, an independent network of volunteers working from 16 countries. Email us, if you like, or join the Mailing list to get all the latest news.
McSpotlight opened for non-business in Feb 1996 and now gets well over a million hits a month. We like to claim that we've had the most press coverage of any website in the world ever, which may well be true. And the most awards, which almost certainly isn't.
It all started with the McLibel Trial. Of which much, much, much, much, much more.
and why. Yes, we appreciate that McDonald's only sell hamburgers and loads of other corporations are just as bad. But that's not the point. They have been used as a symbol of all multinationals and big business relentlessly pursuing their profits at the expense of anything that stands in their way.
McDonald's were chosen for this dubious honour because a) everyone's heard of them, b) they're bullies who threaten legal action on almost anyone who dares criticise them, c) there's stacks of in-depth information available about them (thanks to the research that's gone into the McLibel Trial), d) the nature of their business means loads of contemporary issues are relevant, e) they pioneered various unwelcome practices which other companies have followed and f) they take themselves far too seriously.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
the main implication of this decision is that people fighting libel actions should have access to legal aid. personally i don't think an awful lot of libel claimants and defendents should get anywhere near legal aid, and these jokers certainly shouldn't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kamrat X
Yes. |
why are the supernational entities better?
why are they more trustworthy?
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
actually, I trust the federal government more than states
the questions I asked are a case by case thing
not a general one, or I don't feel they are general (that bigger is always better)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I always told you guys that British libel laws were bad  . I wonder how the Brits respond to this, because IIRC, there were some Brits here defending the burden of proof being on the accused. |
While I agree with this cases verdict, I would also agree that if you make a statement about someone, the burden is on you to show that statement is correct. The press are intrusive and sensationalist enough, giving them legitimacy to state ludicrous untruths about people, libel, that is, and not be held accountable for it because it is not possible to conclusively prove that i's false, would be a mistake, IMHO.
I want to know that I'm protected against someone making damaging claims against me that are false.
Imagine this scenario:
Someone decides to publish an expose on some famous person having an affair. Because of this, his wife leaves him and he loses his job. Despite the complete lack of evidence supporting the claims, he cannot sue for libel, as it's simply his word against the libellor's word as to whether or not he did. Doesn't that sound unjust? I believe that if you want to make derogatory comments against someone that damage that person, you should be held accountable unless what you say is the truth. I don't believe it is for them to prove that you were not right, otherwise mindless, baseless accusations would not class as libel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I've always thought that being presumed innocent before declared guilty is a better idea than the other way around. |
As do I. I would presume the defendant to have evidence of their claim, unless I learned otherwise by them being unable to produce it.
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And you're view makes it so that a source is NEVER able to be protected. How do you prove the truth of your statement if the person leaking it is a government worker that doesn't want to be revealed because he'll get sacked? |
This is the problem. Both sides are open to exploitation. I admit, this side will mean some people who were being truthful will be punished for not being able to produce evidence, however the other way means people will be able to be harmed by libellous action without recourse. I would favour removing the burden of proof altogether and letting a court decide whether the claim made was a reasonable claim, in which case it would not have to pay damages, or unreasonable, in which case it would. It's not about proving whether it was correct, which is difficult, nor proving that it wasn't, which is also difficult, but about showing whether there was evidence, or whether it was a baseless accusation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
I would presume the defendant to have evidence of their claim, unless I learned otherwise by them being unable to produce it. |
Initial burden of proof on the defendant is declaring guilty before you've entertained thoughts of innocene. |
No, I'm presuming the defendant to be innocent, but I'm redefining the crime to be publishing something damaging without evidence. They are presumed innocent unless the court believes beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty, however not producing the evidence for the claim would be a very strong indicator that the evidence didn't exist. Obviously there is the problem of sources, but that's a much smaller problem than one faced by the other options, IMHO.
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'll take that downside over the other. |
Which is where we differ, though I prefer reasonability rather than proof being the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Even if a court decides, you STILL have problems with revealing of sources. That will never not be an issue. |
There are usually other ways to prove something, once it's been exposed. Yes that's still an issue, but it likely would be in any situation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2005 23:33
|