Bullsuit

Texas cattlemen vs. Winfrey case puts ridiculous law to the test

The suit will test the 1995 Texas law that prohibits making false and disparaging statements about perishable food products. Laws such as these are sometimes called "veggie libel" laws.

The "veggie libel" laws are misguided. They make business interests a priority to freedom of speech, which violates the intent of the First Amendment.

A vegetarian activist who was a guest on her show made comments about how the practice of feeding ground-up animal parts to cattle -- a practice banned in the United States -- could spread the disease to U.S. citizens. After the guest's comments Winfrey said, "It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger."

After the show was broadcast, cattle futures prices fell by more than 10 percent, and the futures did not rebound until weeks later. Associating the drop with Winfrey's comments spurred the beef industry to take the popular talk show host to court.

Admittedly, Winfrey has power over her viewers. Books mentioned on her book club shows head straight for the best seller's list shortly after her shows air. But to say that Winfrey can stop beef from being "what's for dinner" is ludicrous.

Winfrey should not allow the cattlemen to cow her. She was not encouraging anyone to follow her lead. She was simply expressing future changes in her diet.

The plaintiffs also will have a difficult time proving that Winfrey was responsible for the drop in futures prices. Prices on other commodities also fell during that time period.

The cattlemen's beef with Winfrey is only costing taxpayers money, and Winfrey is being singled out by the industry because she is highly visible and wealthy. Visible advocates of vegetarianism are not being targeted by the industry and being accused of "veggie libel."

Winfrey should take this case as far as she has to in order to win. Maybe this highly visible case will show that "veggie libel" is unjust and gives produce precedence over free speech.