Thursday, February 19, 1998

Lowering the stakes

Whatever the outcome of the Oprah Winfrey trial in Amarillo, it's unfortunate there will be no decisive court test of Texas' 1995 food defamation law. The federal judge on Tuesday tossed out that part of the case, allowing cattlemen to continue their lawsuit over comments made on Oprah's talk show about mad cow disease only as a simple disparagement suit.

Although U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson did not go so far as to declare the Texas law unconstitutional, she seemed to strike a blow against its basic validity. If the state's so-called "veggie libel law" was not applicable in this instance, it's difficult to imagine one in which it would be. Plus, if current statutes governing ordinary business disparagement are adequate for such cases, then why does Texas need the "veggie libel law" in the first place?

Legal experts and ordinary Americans who are fond of the First Amendment's free speech rights have been watching this case closely, expecting it to become the U.S. Supreme Court test for nationwide "veggie libel laws." For the state's 1995 food defamation law does raise serious First Amendment questions, despite denials to the contrary by advocates for Texas agriculture producers.

For the moment, those questions must remain unresolved. And it is yet to be seen whether the next suit under the "veggie libel law" will be filed against someone who can summon the extensive legal resources of a rich celebrity like Oprah Winfrey.