Understanding Veggie and Criminal Libel Laws: Implications of Agricultural Food Defamation, Study notes of Communication

Download Understanding Veggie and Criminal Libel Laws: Implications of Agricultural Food Defamation and more Study notes Communication in PDF only on Docsity! Veggie Libel  13 states have veggie libel laws, including Oklahoma State University (additional info)  Our (Oklahoma) statute has not been challenged in court (additional info) Know the definitions and rules.  Which lawsuit prompted the creation of veggie libel law? o 1995 – legislators created a clause of action allowing “producers of perishable agricultural food products” to recover damages for disparagement of their products.  Oklahoma's veggie libel statute: o What are the elements?  Allows producers of perishable agricultural food products to recover damages for disparagement of their products:  Disparagement – “dissemination of information to the public in any manner which casts doubt on the safety of any perishable agricultural food product to the consuming public.”  Applies “when the disparagement is based on false information which is not based on reliable scientific facts and scientific data and which the disseminator knows or should have known to be false.”  Perishable food product – “an agricultural product… intended for human consumption which is sold/distributed in a form that will perish or decay beyond marketability w/in a period of time…  Includes “horticultural, viticultural, nut, dairy, livestock, poultry, bee and any other farm products.” o According to legislators, why was the statute necessary?  Was necessary because agricultural food products constitute “a large proportion of the state’s economy” and “it is beneficial to the citizens of this state to protect the vitality of the agricultural economy.” o What do critics say about veggie libel statutes? (On Quiz)  Critics say that they only serve to chill speech on an important topic of public concern – food safety – and may be unconstitutional under the libel rules promulgated in New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. o Has Oklahoma's statute been used by a plaintiff?  As of mid-2005 – no.  Oprah Winfrey case: Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 11 F. Supp. 2d 858 (1998) o How do the statutes in Texas and Oklahoma differ? (On Quiz)  Texas’ law more specifically applies to products “sold or distributed in a form that will perish or decay beyond marketability w/in a limited period of time” o What were U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson 's ruling and reasoning? Would they be applicable to Oklahoma's statute?  Ruled: Live cattle didn’t fall into the Texas statute’s definition of “perishable food product”  Ruled: Cattlemen hadn’t proved the defendants “knowingly disseminated false info”  Reasoning: Life fed cattle “may decay in the sense that as they age they may pass into a state of less perfection” – meaning that they may be less profitable because 1 feed costs exceeds the price additional pounds gained and that they may be discounted/not purchased by certain buyers  Reasoning: None fits into “carefully crafted statutory language which requires the food product… perish/decay ‘beyond marketability”  Reasoning: “The cattle in question are still marketable, although they may be less profitable, and in some cases not marketable to every buyer… Plaintiffs do not produce a food product that will perish/decay beyond marketability w/in a limited period of time.”  NO o Did the Oprah Winfrey case test the constitutionality of veggie libel statutes ? Explain.  Yes, it challenged the right to speak disparagingly against a food provider and demonstrated that people can still do it…  Yes, it tested the constitutionality and would have been deemed constitutional because what was said on her show wouldn’t have made the cattle less marketable because the statute said that cattle must “perish or decay beyond marketability” and her show made the cattle do neither.  Robinson said the cattle may be less profitable, the cattlemen wouldn’t have a product that would perish or decay beyond marketability during a certain time and that they (cattlemen) hadn’t proved the dissemination of false info. Criminal Libel Know the definitions and rules.  According to Gregory C. Lisby, what is the purpose of criminal libel statutes? (On Quiz) o Purpose – restore plaintiff’s reputation, “the first function of criminal libel has always been social order and control. More accurately, its purpose historically has been to protect power and privilege”  How did criminal libel differ from civil libel when the colonists brought the legal concepts to America? o While the notion of punishing those who defame others dates back to antiquity, common law criminal libel originated w/ the 1275 statute criminalizing scandalatum magnatum – the reporting of false ‘news’ about the English king of the ‘great men of the realm. o When the crime of libel came to America w/ the colonists, it differed significantly from its civil counterpart. For example, a civil lawsuit couldn’t be filed “if the defamatory statement was made to the person defamed, on the assumption that he would not ‘be harmed if no one else knew about it.’ This was not true for criminal libel; b/c ‘of its tendency to stir up a breach of the peace, criminal libel could be committed by communication the defamatory matter to… the one defamed.” o Truth was a defense in a civil suite, but not in a prosecution. Under a common law prosecution for libel, “evidence that the libelous matter was true was not admissible…”  Under Oklahoma's constitution and criminal libel statute, when is truth a defense? o Truth could be a defense if the defendant also proved to the jury “that the libelous matter was written or published w/ good motives and w/ justifiable ends, or was a privileged communication.” 2