You won’t see that very often. While I find his campaigning irritating beyond belief, the decision by one man to sue him over what he said is an example of the compo culture gone crazy.
A worker laid off by a US beef processing company has sued celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, a food blogger and ABC News, saying their use of the term “pink slime” helped him lose his job.
So, the defendants criticised this product. It seems to me that in the land of the free, they are entitled to do just that. People stopped buying the product – whether because of what was said or not is neither here nor there; they did. In the land of the free are they not entitled to do just that? The company closed some of its plants as a consequence of a shrinking market and this person was laid off. Welcome to the real world. If consumers no longer want to buy your product you evolve or you die. That’s life. You don’t try to silence your critics so that people still buy the product and you don’t punish them because they were unkind to you and people stopped buying your product.
Hopefully the courts will treat this law suit with the contempt it so richly deserves.
In a blog post, Bettina Siegel – who petitioned the US government to change its food policy – remained unrepentant.
“I’m confident the First Amendment protects the rights of all Americans, including bloggers like myself, against meritless attempts at censorship like this one.”
“I will vigorously defend my right, and the rights of all of us, to speak out on matters of public importance.”
Precisely.
I think I need to go and wash my hands now…
Yes and No.
The trouble is some people have more influence than others – Delia Smith says she likes brown eggs; result no white eggs in the supermarkets any more. Clarkson and co. wet themselves over £100,000 hand-built exotica and pour scorn on anything locally built at affordable prices; result economy cars are all imports. Another example that comes to mind was during the MMR scare. Some doctor makes his case on the radio. Presumably has studied etc. and medicine is his life. As a scientist of sorts can’t of course guarantee absolute safety. Then up pops some bimbo, famous for being famous but has branched out into selling ‘organic’ foods with her name on. She wouldn’t go for the MMR jab of course. Who do you trust, the unknown doctor or the lovely, bubbly bimbo as familiar as family?
If people trust others because of their celebrity status, well, that’s up to them (or more fool them if you like). It isn’t a case for suing them as they are entitled to voice an opinion along with the rest of us.
To be honest, my usual response when a celebrity drones on about whatever ’cause’ they’ve adopted for the week my first thought is usually along the lines of ‘what the hell do you know about it?’. To change ones lifestyle on the say so of a no mark publicity whore would seem somewhat naive, especially as it’s as likely as not that they’re just after a bit of fresh publicity for a new book or suchlike.
Perfectly true. However, not the point I’m making here.
“Trust a Dr or a bimbo”?? So let’s see now, whatever happened to informed opinion? You know actually doing a little cross referenced research of your own?
Some bimbos opinion is just that, as much authority as the opinion of some bloke down the pub. That’s not to say that their opinion is in error, but just check the facts.
Perhaps I’m reading something into your comment that isn’t there, but you appear to say that the Doctors opinion (for that is all it is) is bares more weight than anyone elses on the subject, yes?
All a Doctors opinion is, is the latest concensus view of his particular group, which can change but only once it becomes blindingly obvious to all.
The concensus view of Doctors in the treatment of the clap prior to the discovery of penicillin was to inject mercury into your todger or a course of leeches…
I’ll take the leeches…
If I remember rightly the bimbo’s opinion was that putting three vaccines into a child at the same time clearly overloaded their poor little immune systems.
Exposing a simple, sterile, dish of agar jelly to the air for a few seconds readily provides evidence for anyone with eyes and microscope to see that her simplistic view is wrong.
Of course anyone can hold an opinion and that opinion can be wrong and probably no one hangs on to their opinions like an ‘expert’. However there is a balance of probabilities and on medical materials one might expect to put more weight on the views of Dr. Smith than Mr. Jones the bus driver. My point here though is that in this case ‘Mr. Jones’ is replaced by ‘Miss Jones’, the bubbly TV personality that you see more often than your own family. As a ‘personality’ she gains the authority of TV when in reality it all comes off the teleprompter and she wouldn’t even know how to apply a sticking plaster.
By extrapolation from second hand smoke, third hand smoke, alcohol, fat, cholesterol, salt; I’d trust the bimbo every time.
DO NOT put headlines like that on your post without some sort of warning. My bloody eyeballs fell out and I was forty minutes groping around looking for ’em. Just behave yourself in future!
I hope you dusted them off before putting them back in.
Just dipped ’em in gin…
It’s a pity he campaigns that way because his message is not exactly evil – eat healthily. Perhaps if he could cool it and be attacked more, it might move more people.
The thing with Jamie Oliver is he takes what in principle is a pretty good idea (the school meals thing for example) but spoils it by allowing his twattery to shine through.
The school meals thing he did, drop the hotdogs and crappy individual pizzas and get back to the classic meat and 2 veg etc. On the face of it, sorted. He then has to start fucking around with asparagus and the like.
Have to disagree with you here Mr. L.
This was covered by US based blogs at the time, and it was the worst sort of elitist food snobbery in action, just as you would expect from Mr. Oliver. He and the TV company who were presenting his views are entitled to their opinion of course but then they are also liable for the consequencies of airing that opinion.
In short, they started a scare about how this food product was bad for you, with, as you might expect in this sort of issue, debatable at best evidence, and the consequence was a drop in demand and the closure of factories with the loss of hundreds of jobs. As far as I know, and despite the panic, the US FDA et al. have found no evidence of any health issues with the use of this product, and it remains legal to produce and sell.
If I were one of those who lost their jobs just because some poncey limey wanted to get on TV and present his prejudices against low cost food that he thinks we shouldn’t eat under the cover of exposing a bogus public health risk, then I would want to sue as well.
I’m sorry, but freedom of speech is an absolute. If people speak about a particular foodstuff, that is their absolute right – regardless of whether they are right or wrong, regardless of whether they have evidence to back up their claims. If others take note and change their shopping habits as a consequence, that is their absolute right. People do not have the absolute right to have a job, nor do they have an absolute right to have their market protected, because that is what this is about; protectionism, pure and simple.
This case must fail if it is not to set a very nasty precedent. It is effectively an attempt to stifle freedom of speech using civil law. Very, very nasty. Next time someone feels the need to speak out about a very real danger, they will think twice about doing so. No, I stand by my remarks on this one. Let people have their say and let others judge their comments accordingly.
I don’t agree that this is a freedom of speech issue, or at least, that the complainant doesn’t have the right to seek damages for the consequences of this speech – that’s a common law right and should be respected.
Of course, I don’t have first hand knowledge of who said what, only what I’ve read, as you do. So, if our old mate Jamie had said something like; cor blimey mate, have you seen how they make that pink slime stuff? Would you Adam and Eve it, yeaagh! If I were you, I wouldn’t touch anything made with that stuff with a barge pole, then I would say he would have no case to answer.
However, as I understand it, the TV programme alleged something along the lines of that if you eat products made with pink slime, you get ill and die.
To me, that’s quite a different kettle of swordfish. The commercial consequences of this sort of speech are obvious and actionable if not true. If what was said is true, he and ABC have nothing to fear, if not, then the claimant is entitled to damages. And as I said, as far as I know, they’ve not properly substantiated their claims, just created yet another food health scare. Surely we’ve had enough of those lately?
How would you like it if someone went on TV and made up all sorts of stuff about your safety performance such that Network Rail said you were persona non-grata on their network? Wouldn’t you think that taking away your railway job based on BS statements was actionable? Or is railway safety so important, that we must encourage anyone with an axe to grind and who wants to be on TV free reign to say what they want without fear of the consquences? Hmm.
And let’s not pretend this bloke is some sort of selfless food safety campaigner, he’s a celebrity chef, and if he’s not on TV, he’s not earning money.
I’m all for free speech, have at it but don’t assume people or companies don’t get hurt, and that they can’t come after you for the consequences if what you say is wrong.
I’m sorry, it very much is a freedom of speech issue and I’m not deluding myself about Oliver. As for network Rail, been there, done that. I was working for Railtrack at the time of Hatfield, so I’ve been on the receiving end – The Mirror vilified everyone working there irrespective of whether we were involved or not. Doesn’t change my stance. This case must fail if there is any justice.
It is up to individuals to decide for themselves whether to take any notice of these food scares or the opinions voiced by the likes of Oliver and the food bloggers who campaigned against this stuff. That they did is their decision. It was up to the company to counter the claims. If they did, clearly they didn’t make a very good job of it. Tough shit, frankly. Suing is just another example of the compo culture and my sympathy for the claimant can be measured in minus figures – especially given that this obnoxious shit is using it to publicise his book.
Why is it OK for a company to object and take action but not a worker? I don’t see your distinction.
So, no one has any right to seek damages in the courts due to them being directly harmed by some TV company that wants to sell advertising by broadcasting a show that may be inaccurate, or even completely wrong? Otherwise there’s no free speech? Interesting argument.
It’s a shame you didn’t come to this subject at the same time as I did because the US based libertarian/conservative blogs that were reporting on it at the time were pointing out the tyranny of a major TV broadcaster and celeb. allegedly being somewhat cavalier with the truth and getting away with it because it was a story that fitted in with the zeitgeist of the day.
It’s bugger all to do with compensation culture, give him another job and the money he lost from pursuing a completely legal employment before that was taken away from him by people who despise the ordinary bloke and his lifestyle, and he’ll go away.
I’ll champion the interests of the ordinary bloke over those that want to control our lives any day, and if this action makes them think even once before launching into the next nanny state we know better than you campaign, then all power to him.
Tyranny? What hyperbole. The use of the term causes me to switch off from the argument in its entirety. It was nothing of the sort. No one was being forced to do anything.
Those campaigning had every right to do so. It was up to the company to put forward its case. Clearly they either did not or were ineffective. Too bad. Tough shit. The buying public decided they didn’t want this product. That is a basic liberty – y’know to buy stuff that we want and not to buy stuff we don’t. Unless we are to assume that people were all brainwashed and do exactly what Jamie Oliver tells them to do. This, as we have seen is nonsense. Rather more likely is that people looked at the product, having been alerted to the manufacturing process, and decided that they would prefer not to eat it.
What this nasty action is all about is stifling the debate and trying to use censorship to deprive the public of alternative opinions and viewpoints. Well, the public decided. It is a decision that I would have made myself because, frankly, having looked at how this stuff is made, I wouldn’t buy it. Would I be doing this man out of a job? If I was, then that is what happens when products go out of favour and the company fails to evolve. Would Jamie Oliver be to blame? Of course not. The decision would have been mine and mine alone.
One end result was that schools were given the freedom to not serve it. That seems fine to me.
This isn’t about the ordinary bloke – it is about a cynical attempt to use civil law to stifle people’s right to speak out and campaign while at the same time flogging a book. I might not agree with their campaign, but I will damned well stand by their right to do it.
Tyranny – arbitrary or unrestrained abuse of power. Seems to me to be definitely applicable when talking about how some ordinary factory production worker loses his job because of the actions of a TV company and a millionaire celeb. who wants to sell a book as you say. Certainly a very unequal situation, where this person feels entirely powerless and at the mercy of forces he can’t protect himself from without the law to help him.
I’ve seen nothing on the net to say this bloke is trying to stifle debate, alternative viewpoints or anything of the sort – where do you get that from? He’s quite clear what he wants – his job back…
I quite agree I wouldn’t want to eat this stuff either but I prefer to make my own mind up about, now I can’t, because someone has done it for me. Some freedom…
Nonsense. Indeed, it is very hard to take such a statement even vaguely seriously it is so absurd. I’m having trouble keeping a straight face, frankly. There was no power to use or abuse. They put forward an opinion – as did the blogger who is also being sued. We cannot say for certain that this is why people chose not to buy the product. The day that people are forced on pain of legal penalty to watch Jamie Oliver’s television show, you might have a point. Until then, it is laughable nonsense.
That’s life. People decided they didn’t want the product. He will have to do what I did when faced with a similar situation – find something else.
By suing the critics of the product (it was perfectly clear in the OP), that is what will happen if he succeeds. And, as people don’t want his product he can’t have his job back, so that’s just too bad. Or are consumers to be forced to buy and eat this product so that he can have a job?
And people did make up their own minds and decided they didn’t want it. Products go out of favour all the time. You don’t have the freedom to buy a new British made typewriter either for much the same reason – not enough other people want to buy it so it went out of production. Get over it.