February 15, 2005
Libel & McLibel
Fifteen years after activists in London provoked the wrath of McDonald’s Corporation, the European Court of Human Justice ruled that two defendants did not have a fair trial, and were deprived of free speech by a 1997 libel ruling against them in British Courts.
Whatever the merits of their original leaflet (and even the courts at the time found that the merits were considerable), when the threat of legal action mutes reasoned objections to the actions of the powerful, the public is poorly served. Libel laws are necessary to protect individuals, and yes even corporations, from suffering losses based on untruthful charges of wrongdoing, but when the claims are subjective and the plaintiffs are powerful, common sense needs to err in favor of protecting the free speech of those willing to challenge the mighty.
As former defendant Helen Steel stated recently, this "is not the end of the battle for the public to be able to criticize powerful organizations in our society."
In the United States, it's high time that the concept of Corporate Personhood be fundamentally challenged. I'm not expecting much help from the Bush administration in that regard, though. Just how global a concept has it come to be?
Given the ubiquitous reach of corporations across the globe and its immense influence over politicians here in the US and other western nations, it would appear the day will arrive when government by and for the people will be replaced by corporate governance. Any good capitalist knows government is just a middle man anyway, damned interfering and inconvenient one too.
The big hurdle of course is for corporations to acquire control over the military. If it weren’t for that significant hurdle, there would be no government in America today, just corporate dictates.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 15, 2005 05:39 PMHey Walker, I skimmed through the Corporate Personhood link, but didn’t study it hard enough (it’s not a hot-button issue for me) to figure out what the practical objections are. Can you sum it up?
The big hurdle of course is for corporations to acquire control over the military.
Too late, David. All of the corporations doing business in Iraq have hired military forces. As a whole, private armed forces are the second largest military contingent in Iraq. They have their own air support, and run combat patrols alongside US forces.
Posted by: American Pundit at February 16, 2005 07:39 AMA.P.
“private armed forces”
Didn’t we used to call them Mercenarys?
Posted by: Rocky at February 16, 2005 11:46 PMYes we did Rocky, until the Iraqis charcoaled a few and strung ‘em up - then the outrage-feigning right called us un-American for using the term “mercenaries” to describe them.
Seriously though, I think the use of mercenaries was outlawed through some treaty the US is a signatory to, so use of the word, “mercenary”, is a little sensitive. Like the word “genocide”.
Posted by: American Pundit at February 17, 2005 12:11 AMIf my memory serves me correctly (I read McLibel:Burger Culture on Trial by John Vidal), the defendants in this case were fined 60,000 pounds for “serious” and “important” libels. Will this new ruling result in a return of these fines and can the defendants now sue McDonalds for their vicious lawsuit? I think it would be good to haul Micky D’s back to court.
Posted by: Earl Murray at February 17, 2005 05:10 PM
