Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 6, 1998)
Where’s the beef? Oprah Winfrey cattle trial lacks merit on both sides MALCOLM KASS is a chemical engineering major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist. How now, mad cow? It’s a brawl in the Old West, where both the Hatfields and McCoys are packing six-shooters of the First Amendment, and the drama is as bizarre as a physically attractive engineer. The scene is Amarillo, Texas, where cattle are tearing away the very fabric of the Constitution, all in the name of Oprah. This soap opera is mangling die threads of sanity, leav ing us bewildered and confused, graying the space between black and white, good and evil, the just and unjust When I first heard about the Catdemen vs. Oprah Winfrey trial, I thought probably like many of you, that Oprah Winfrey’s show can air any opinion she wants. This $ 10.3 million lawsuit is, much like Texas itself, a bunch of bunk. After researching the premise and oddities of this trial, I had no idea what to believe. Both sides point to the First Amendment - one side claims slan der hurts, the other doesn’t This fight arose from the April 16,1996, broadcast of “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” which focused on the possibility of mad cow disease reach ing the states from Great Britain. Guests on the show were Howard Lyman, who was a former cattle rancher turned vegetarian; Dr. Gary Weber of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; and Dr. Will Hueston of the University of 1T1U1 J UU1U. In the following debate, Lyman said the U.S. Department of Agriculture has placed the public at risk for mad cow disease, saying it could make AIDS look like the com mon cold. After Lyman finished, Winfrey then stated, “It has just stopped me from eating another burger!” Dr. Weber and Dr. Hueston were allowed to retort during the taping, during which Dr. Hueston later men tioned the show had “a lynch-mob mentality” toward meat eaters. With the episode’s extreme vege tarian views, Texas cattlemen decided to sue Lyman and Winfrey for slandei because “The Oprah Winfrey Show” aired Mr. Lyman’s inaccurate com ments. Cattle producers claim it cost them $10.3 million. The case focuses on two points: First, if the comments said on the program actually caused a $10 mil lion loss in future prices, and second ly, if the First Amendment protects Lyman and Winfrey’s show from slander, even though they may have knowingly lied to stress their opin ions. A tough call. But what makes this case so damn interesting are the words said by Lyman. Lyman is certainly a man who believes in his convictions, which I can respect However, during the trial he answered questions all but proving iuj i^uvuutvv uuvui uiv uiovuov auu basically common sense in general, saying, “I believe there are a lot of ways of educating other than facts.” He also said his statements on the show were “based on the information (he) had in (his) soul.” This is why vegetarians freak me out When I hear this, I think of the future. 1 think of all the psycho vege tarians like Howie Lyman in a court room saying, “I believe there are a lot of ways of educating other than facts. That’s why I blew up the meat-pack ing plant killing 232 people!” or “I mack that pipe bomb, based on the information I had in my soul!” Lyman even admitted some of his family believes he’s nuts! Does Oprah Winfrey believe her show is credible claiming a madman from Montana is an expert on a disease that can actually kill people? Do Oprah and Jerry Springer just rotate guests? With the estranged Mr. Lyman looming in the mist, the trial has shown itself to be more disturbing than eating a half-digested pancake off the floor at McDonald’s, just like that bastard Todd Munsondid! On one hand, “The Oprah Winfrey Show” may have known or, more important ly, should have known the statements from Howard Lyman that caused this $ 10 million suit were untrue. On the other hand, tabloids chron ically print false information about celebrities and national figureheads and continue unscathed, making one wonder, why should Oprah pay the bill? Boiling away die quirks of the trial, one final question becomes apparent: Should slander be legal even if it’s a source of damage to someone or some group? Now the word “damage” trans forms into a vague, unclear term meaning financial loss, emotional loss, etc. How much damage is need ed for slander to be illegal? What forms of damage are legal and ille gal? Because of die existence of these questions, Winfrey should not com pensate the Texas cattlemen for the lost earnings. If Winfrey was ordered to repay the cool $10.3 million, what kind of precedent would be set? Should anyone with proof that some one misdirected the American public sue for a variety of damages? What about judicial cases where a state ment is false using one point of view and true viewing another angle? This could become a backed-up judicial sewer. Besides, profiting from raising cattle should not be viewed as a right. It is a business, and with a business there are sound times and not so sound times. Don't misunderstand me: “The Oprah Winfrey Show” was terribly irresponsible and should real lze me amount oi sway upran nas m public opinion. Winfrey cannot be held responsible for die gullibility of the American people. Instead of receiving a $10.3 mil lion shaft, Oprah should eat a ham burger in front of America, a quaint gesture saying, “I’m sorry. I screwed up.” Then paparazzo should say, “We’re sorry we whacked Princess Di.” And the creator of those wimpy microbrews must say, “We suck. We screwed beer.” America would be right again. An eye for an eye The punishment should match the crime for serious offenses KLAUS MARRE is a senior broadcasting major and a Daily Nebraskan colum nist. On Tuesday night, Karla Faye Tucker got the needle and, as always, the death penalty caused great con troversy all through the land. There was a time when I believed capital punishment was wrong. That time was June 14,1993, between 10 a.m. and 10:02 a.m. In general, I am opposed to tak ing another person’s life, but on the other hand, I cannot answer the “If it was your little sister, would you want uic muruerer aeaa' question wnn a “no.” Hell, I’d gladly kill the bastard myself. Back in the old days, if you stole something, you’d get your hand cut off. If you committed adultery or raped somebody... well, you do the math. That system really isn’t that bad, because you can steal only twice and rape just once. So much for repeat offenders. Actually, I’m not in favor of dis membering rapists... hold on! Hell yes, I am. Let’s get back to punish ment that is just that - punishment. I am not a religious man, but those Christians might have been on to something when they came up with that “eye for an eye” thing. Well, I guess many rapists get a fair share of their own medicine in jail, but that is not what I mean. To me, it comes down to making sure the criminals get what they deserve, and they never do it again. Call me old-fashioned, but if you take a human’s life, you just don’t deserve to be a part of society any more. The same holds true for rapists or child molesters. If you screw up the life of another person in such a way, you should never be allowed to be free again. I used to work with kids who were physically, mentally and sexu ally abused. I believe harming a child in these ways is the worst crime a person can commit. These children are scarred for life. The memories will never go away and can possibly affect the rest of their lives. In their cases, considering today’s life expectancy, this equals 70 years of nightmares, 70 years of being afraid to trust another person and 70 years of horrendous flashbacks. The criminals’ punishment is not even close to what the victims have to endure. They’ll get a slap on the wrist from some lenient judge, or maybe they’ll go to prison for a few months. Then they come back and do it again. There is something wrong with that picture. Just look at the case of Mary Kay LeToumeau, the teacher who had an affair with a 13-year-old student. She had a child with this bov and went to jail for three months. On Tuesday she was arrested again for having been with the same boy, sit ting in a car with “steamed-up win dows.” This encounter should have never happened. There is no way she ever should have seen this boy again. Let’s put away the double standard for a second and pretend society would treat this case as if a male teacher had raped a female student Put yourself in the position of this child’is parents. First of all, there is the suffering the family had to go through after finding out their little kid was raped by a teacher (child rape was the charge she admitted being guilty of). Then they find out the criminal was released. Then, less than half a year after the first convic tion, the same thing happens again. In crimes such as rape or child abuse some way has to be found that ensures the victim and die criminal never meet again. I believe LeToumeau should have been locked up for a large portion of her life, sim ply because die does not seem to fit in society. Why give her another chance just to see her fail again? I’m all for trying to rehabilitate people who are guilty of minor offenses like grand theft auto. Society can afford to give them another shot What is the worst that could happen? They steal another car, somebody gets insurance money, and no harm is done. The same does not hold true for other crimes. Why give a rapist a second chance? So that he (or she) can ruin another family’s life? I don’t think so. Just put them in a safe place for 20 to 30 years. My idea of an efficient cor rectional facility does not include a bunc hole: grou Sunc cialt getti fora S think prob awai then an 8 anig rape* \ back castration for sex offenders, then you can v count on my — vote. s\//' A. A f 3ls 'hi1 • ^