Yesterday in our tort law lecture, our teacher was away so we watched a video. Basically, this is a teacher's way of torturing us in her absence, because these videos are always awful.
McLibel was no exception. It covered the lonnnng, drawn out trial that McDonald's faced in the early 90s. A group of people were handing out leaflets that aimed to tell the world how awful Maccas was, 'exposing' their nutritional defecits, environmental faults, employment malfunctions, false advertising and animal mistreatment. Maccas sued, and only two people refused to apologise. Helen and David, with no legal experience, stood up for themselves. The court case went for seventeen years, before the final verdict was handed down by the European Union.
I'm not sure if this was meant to be a heartwarming tale - two people taking on a multi-million dollar corporation. However, these people neglected their family and worked themselves to the bone for seventeen years. I'm all for people standing up for their beliefs, but i much prefer it when they do it in a way that isn't completely self-righteous.
It may seem like i'm over-reacting, and should be supporting the little man... but you should have heard these people!
Helen and David claimed that Maccas was borderline evil, because they advertised predominately to pull in the children. Their television ads were all about happy kids, playing games and making their lives better by eating Maccas. Apparently, this was both false advertising and hideously wrong because Maccas is so un-nutritious. Now, personally, i don't think that their advertising campaign is wrong. They're doing no more than any other company would do to sell their product. And yes, their food is unhealthy. But nowhere on the ads do they encourage people to eat it every day. If Helen and David decided to sue Maccas for false advertising, surely they'd have to sue every other company that puts their company forward as one that will make all of their consumers happy.
Then we watched a good 20 minutes about the horrible working condions that Maccas employees face. Apparently, working for minumum wage is just a travesty for the poor, hard working people of Maccas. Now, that's absolute rubbish. Minimum wage is there for a reason. It's a government decided wage. It's reasonable. And for all of those people who flip burgers and press oven buttons, i'm pretty sure they're lucky to be making that much. As for their hiring as many people under 18 to fulfill such easy job restraints - what's wrong with that? It seems fairly sensible to me. Annoying, but sensible. A conclusion which most companises like Maccas agree with.
As for the cruelty to animals? I'll admit that watching thousands of tiny little chickens being slaughtered was upsetting. But are Helen and David vegetarians? Nope. Are they going after every company in the world that kills animals? No. How is Maccas any worse than those companies? No idea.
The video was incredibly annoying. It served less to educate me on the ins and outs of the system of defamation than it did to drive me up the wall and asking what the hell was wrong with these two people. In the end, Helen and David were supposed to pay Maccas 40, 000 pounds (but they never did - because they're 'outside the law'.). Obviously, the court agreed that Helen and David were a little nuts. Granted, the courts did agree with Helen and David that some of their defamatory comments were based on truth. But was it really so important as to take up 17 years? I felt so sorry for David's little boy, who was filmed saying that he missed spending time with his dad.
The whole program just drove me nuts!! People making a huge fuss over nothing. How about the next time they feel like making a stink, they go after sweatshops in thailand, rather than attacking the slightly misguided people at Maccas who are just out to earn some money, like the rest of the world. Grrrr....
McLibel was no exception. It covered the lonnnng, drawn out trial that McDonald's faced in the early 90s. A group of people were handing out leaflets that aimed to tell the world how awful Maccas was, 'exposing' their nutritional defecits, environmental faults, employment malfunctions, false advertising and animal mistreatment. Maccas sued, and only two people refused to apologise. Helen and David, with no legal experience, stood up for themselves. The court case went for seventeen years, before the final verdict was handed down by the European Union.
I'm not sure if this was meant to be a heartwarming tale - two people taking on a multi-million dollar corporation. However, these people neglected their family and worked themselves to the bone for seventeen years. I'm all for people standing up for their beliefs, but i much prefer it when they do it in a way that isn't completely self-righteous.
It may seem like i'm over-reacting, and should be supporting the little man... but you should have heard these people!
Helen and David claimed that Maccas was borderline evil, because they advertised predominately to pull in the children. Their television ads were all about happy kids, playing games and making their lives better by eating Maccas. Apparently, this was both false advertising and hideously wrong because Maccas is so un-nutritious. Now, personally, i don't think that their advertising campaign is wrong. They're doing no more than any other company would do to sell their product. And yes, their food is unhealthy. But nowhere on the ads do they encourage people to eat it every day. If Helen and David decided to sue Maccas for false advertising, surely they'd have to sue every other company that puts their company forward as one that will make all of their consumers happy.
Then we watched a good 20 minutes about the horrible working condions that Maccas employees face. Apparently, working for minumum wage is just a travesty for the poor, hard working people of Maccas. Now, that's absolute rubbish. Minimum wage is there for a reason. It's a government decided wage. It's reasonable. And for all of those people who flip burgers and press oven buttons, i'm pretty sure they're lucky to be making that much. As for their hiring as many people under 18 to fulfill such easy job restraints - what's wrong with that? It seems fairly sensible to me. Annoying, but sensible. A conclusion which most companises like Maccas agree with.
As for the cruelty to animals? I'll admit that watching thousands of tiny little chickens being slaughtered was upsetting. But are Helen and David vegetarians? Nope. Are they going after every company in the world that kills animals? No. How is Maccas any worse than those companies? No idea.
The video was incredibly annoying. It served less to educate me on the ins and outs of the system of defamation than it did to drive me up the wall and asking what the hell was wrong with these two people. In the end, Helen and David were supposed to pay Maccas 40, 000 pounds (but they never did - because they're 'outside the law'.). Obviously, the court agreed that Helen and David were a little nuts. Granted, the courts did agree with Helen and David that some of their defamatory comments were based on truth. But was it really so important as to take up 17 years? I felt so sorry for David's little boy, who was filmed saying that he missed spending time with his dad.
The whole program just drove me nuts!! People making a huge fuss over nothing. How about the next time they feel like making a stink, they go after sweatshops in thailand, rather than attacking the slightly misguided people at Maccas who are just out to earn some money, like the rest of the world. Grrrr....
1 comment:
Actually, the minimum wage in many countries (eg the USA) isn't enough to live off. It hasn't been changed since like the '60s for various reasons, mainly because of pressure from business groups on the government not to raise it because then business would lose out. Makes you wonder whether just because something is "set by the government" it's automatically okay and a good thing? So maybe a company which is one of the richest in the world can afford to pay its staff enough to live off?
And maybe, while it's necessary to kill animals for meat, that Maccas could be more humane about it? There's a difference between necessary slaughter and unnecessary cruelty.
And maybe advertising to children products which are harmful to them isn't a good thing. Yes, all companies advertise with the promise of happiness, but children are unable to tell that this is not true.
Also, other products advertised to children (toys) with the promise of happiness aren't harmful to them, they're just a waste of money. Whereas kids eating Maccas all the time is harmful to them in the short and long term. (While most parents wouldn't allow that, there are some that do - no doubt their own judgment is hindered by Macca's recent attempts to promote a misleading "healthy" image). So all advertising is not the same thing.
And maybe fighting for the right to free speech, especially when what you're saying is true (even if it's defamatory) is an important cause. What kind of world would we live in if nobody could say anything bad about a company, or a government, because they could just sue you for defamation - even if what you're saying is true - and because they have more money they will win? It would be the end of truth if you could not disagree with an advertisement, the premise of which is blatantly false.
Interesting post!
- The Anonymoose returns!
Post a Comment