[skip navigation]
The Associated Press recently ran a long profile of the Texas cattlemen who have the dubious distinction of spending large amounts of money in an effort to keep alive a lawsuit against Oprah Winfrey for disparaging remarks she said about beef on her show several years ago. Winfrey already successfully defended herself in a civil lawsuit brought by the cattleman, that in this writer’s opinion made the Texas beef industry look very bad. Winfrey may show poor judgment in relying on someone as unreliable as Howard Lyman for dietary advice, but the same right to free speech that lets the industry and others show the animal rights claims are nonsense also protects those who hold other opinions.
According to the Associated Press story, the cattlemen have spent close to $6 million pursuing the case against Winfrey – currently they are appealing the result of the civil trial on several grounds – and are willing to spend even more get a court to hold Winfrey liable for her comments.
Charles Babcock, an attorney for Winfrey, says that he does not see Winfrey giving in any time soon either. "We feel this is a meritless lawsuit," Babcock said. "A jury decided it is a meritless lawsuit. The court of public opinion says it is without merit. The trial judge said it is without merit. We think the court of appeals will agree, but if not, we’re ready to go do it again."
The whole business carries a lot of the stench associated with the |McDonald’s| lawsuit against activists who passed out pamphlets in the United Kingdom accusing McDonald’s of doing everything from producing food that caused cancer to destroying the environment. Under British libel laws that heavily favor plaintiffs, the so-called "McLibel" case became the longest running trial in British history and when it was all said and done McDonald’s won an award for a paltry $96,000.
Like the McDonald’s lawsuit, the cattlemen’s obsessive pursuit of Oprah Winfrey is the sort of intimidation tactic I would expect to see from animal rights activists.