Two vegetarian activists handed out a pamphlet called "What's Wrong with McDonald's?" outside a McDonald's in England. The pamphlet criticisized McDonald's labor practices and charged that the corporation was directly responsible for destroying the rainforests and making people fat. The McDonald's Corporation sued them for libel. The trial lasted 313 days and was England's longest ever court case. One of the defendents was a single father and former mailman, the other a bartender. They were no real match for McDonald's, but they refused to back down. They represented themselves in court -- this is no small feat. England's harsh libel laws are not only draconian, but convoluted and complex. England provides legal aid to those who can't afford lawyers for almost all other kinds of cases -- but not for libel cases. The judge in the case was helpful and often coached the pair during court sessions on what they should do next or how to prepare documents.

Vidal documents their struggle against McDonald's and documents all the tedious twists and turns of the case. The legal machinations that both sides present, in particular the countersuit of the two defendants, is dramatic. Chapter 19, which discusses the judgement is gripping. The judge in the case was extraordinarily even handed and fair. The big picture is fascinating -- that a corporation as large as McDonald's would bother to sue two working class activists is absurd on the face of it. But the book makes it clear that McDonald's didn|AMP|rsquo;t want to just make these two people miserable, the corporation wanted to discourage other activists. McDonald's lawyers fully expected the two to settle out of court.

However, the devil is in the details, and there are plenty of details in the book. Vidal discusses the evidence both sides needed to make their cases and evaluates the evidence they did present. My biggest complaint is that Vidal did not reprint the flyer that started it all. He and his publisher were worried that printing this--in the context of a historical study --would make them vulnerable to a lawsuit. Reading the book was also very similar to reading a biography, and I detest biographies because they include too many details. This is why I only give the book a '0.' The legal technicalities became dry quickly. However, I'm glad I read it. It is worth a look if you are at all interested in vegetarianism or multi-national corporations.