Oprah Winfrey is currently being sued by a group of cattle ranchers from

Amarillo, Texas under a newly enacted Texas statute that creates legal liability for
questioning a perishable foods safety without sound scientific proof. Twelve
other states have enacted similar laws. Oprahs case, however, is the first of its
kind. On April 16, 1996 the price of cattle dropped a dramatic 1.5 cents per
pound on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange after Oprahs program that day. The
program, which occurred during the time that the British mad cow epidemic
broke as big news, dealt with the safety of American beef. Oprahs guest, a
former cattle rancher turned vegetarian, claimed that large numbers of cows that
are fine at night, dead in the morning get ground and fed to other animals.
According to the cattle ranchers who sued Oprah there is no evidence of mad
cow disease in the United States. They protest that the Oprah crash on the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange resulted in devastating financial loss for cattle
ranchers.

Is the Texas Statute under which the cattle ranchers have sued Oprah Winfrey a
reasonable law to protect the legitimate financial interests of food producers or
does it encroach upon the fundamental right of free speech?

Opinion

I feel that the Texas Stature is a reasonable law, it does not encroach upon the
right of free speech. However, an amendment could be made, if its not already
there, to allow genuinely concerned people to raise their voice, not by making
allegations and going public with those, but by writing letters to authorities etc.

Root cause

Of the cattle ranchers suing Oprah

They feel, very correctly, that they suffered losses because of the show.

Assumptions

1. The feeling that the law encroaches upon the right to free speech.

Supporting arguments

1. The law is reasonable as it protects against people making claims without

proof, which may cause drop in sales etc.
2. The law does not bar anyone from questioning a perishable foods safety,
it only discourages claims without proof.

3. The law does not encroach upon the right of free speech. With every right,
there is an equal responsibility. A person making unsubstantiated claims,
even if hes sure that hes correct, is acting irresponsibly.
4. You should not speak out in public and make allegations just because you
feel that it is so. You may be sure, but wrong !

Counter Arguments

1. Dosent the law encroach the right of free speech. After all, shouldnt I be
free to raise my voice if I feel somethings wrong even if I dont have
proof ?

No it dosent. If you feel that somethings wrong and you make allegations
without sound proof, you are in essence abusing your right to free speech.
Right to freedom of speech does not mean that you are free to say things that
can harm the interests of the society. Secondly should not go public, causing
a furore, if you dont have solid proof. However, I should be free to bring the
matter to the attention of the authorities, if I feel that somethings wrong, not
by making allegations, but possibly by other means. The law could be
amended to make this possible, if the provision isnt already there.

2. Wouldnt a fear of the law cause genuinely concerned people to keep

quiet rather than speak out?

As mentioned earlier, such people should be free to express their concerns,

but not by making allegations.

3. Isnt making allegations the best way to bring the matter to everybodys
attention?

If that is the case, it is a social and legal problem. In principle a simple act like
writing a letter should prompt the authorities into action. If it isnt so, its a
problem with the attitude of the people, or of inefficiency of the state
executive. The solution is not to change the laws to take this problem into
account, but to address the problem itself. Two wrongs dont make a right.