Is It a Crime to "Defame" a Product?

Discussion in 'General Discussion | Dining' started by MX, Sep 12, 2012.  |  Print Topic

  1. MX

    MX Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    4,805
    Status Points:
    2,545
    "Finely textured beef trimmings" fight back. :D
    http://news.yahoo.com/bpi-plans-pink-slime-defamation-lawsuit-000934888.html
     
  2. LarryInNYC

    LarryInNYC Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Status Points:
    1,445
    No suggestion anywhere in the article that a crime has been committed. Rather, the plaintiffs appear to be seeking remedy for a tort.
     
    downhillcrasher likes this.
  3. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,503
    Likes Received:
    20,197
    Status Points:
    16,520
    Really? They want more / renewed discussion of pink slime in the media?
     
    mht_flyer and Sunshine7 like this.
  4. MX

    MX Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    4,805
    Status Points:
    2,545
    Yeah really, as if more talk can ever make it appetizing!
     
    HaveMilesWillTravel likes this.
  5. desamo

    desamo Gold Member

    Messages:
    9,320
    Likes Received:
    10,970
    Status Points:
    14,975
    Google search on "veggie libel laws"
     
  6. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,503
    Likes Received:
    20,197
    Status Points:
    16,520
    Does the thread title refer to BPI defaming the product "beef" with their slime? Yes, that's a crime.
     
  7. MX

    MX Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    4,805
    Status Points:
    2,545
    Thanks, it's fascinating. But apparently there are no claims of libel in this case. We'll see...
     
  8. gleff
    Original Member

    gleff Co-founder

    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    6,793
    Status Points:
    4,670
    Perhaps knowingly false claims but mere criticism? They won't prevail against that.. (I know nothing of the factsof this case so do not know whether anyone made malicious, false claims.) And as observed above this just brings those claims additional exposure, which can't be good for the plaintiff (if there are indeed damages which accrue from those claims being known).
     
    MX likes this.
  9. milchap
    Original Member

    milchap Gold Member

    Messages:
    27,636
    Likes Received:
    148,038
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Is feedback a crime? ;)
     
    MX likes this.
  10. boondr

    boondr Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    2,732
    Status Points:
    1,425
    Blame it on Chic-Fil-A.
     
  11. 8MiHi

    8MiHi Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    Status Points:
    945
    I'll have one pink slime tort, please.:eek:
     
  12. IkeEsq

    IkeEsq Gold Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    2,160
    Status Points:
    1,170
    Libel is written defamation, versus slander, which is spoken defamation.
     
  13. IkeEsq

    IkeEsq Gold Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    2,160
    Status Points:
    1,170
    I believe that the claim is that some person, people, or group(s) intentionally and maliciously made false statements about the product referred to as pink slime, knowing those statements to be false and doing so with the intent to damage BPI's business. The closure of 3 plants and layoff of 700 workers constitutes their showing of damage as a result of the allegedly tortuous act(s).

    Nothing personal, but if you "know nothing of the facts of this case" and are not a lawyer (or at least thoroughly familiar with tort law) than why even express a wholly-uninformed opinion? The simple fact is that as you and others in this thread have illustrated, the campaign against something the FDA has determined to be safe has been extremely effective and has cost many people their jobs. Why wouldn't the company want a lot of media coverage of what really happened?

    Ike
     
  14. MX

    MX Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    4,805
    Status Points:
    2,545
    That's all we got here, so any opinion is welcome! :)

    It's similar to showing the proverbial sausage making process over and over. The more you know about it, the less you want to eat the product.
    I bet a meat processing company would also not want more attention on their workers. A lot of them are illegals and live in constantly raided camps.
     
    HaveMilesWillTravel likes this.
  15. LarryInNYC

    LarryInNYC Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Status Points:
    1,445
    To be precise, this thread demonstrates that Beef Products, Inc claims that there was a campaign and claims that it was effective and cost them profits and their employees jobs.
     
    HaveMilesWillTravel likes this.
  16. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,503
    Likes Received:
    20,197
    Status Points:
    16,520
    Welcome to the Internet, Ike :)

    Lots of things are extremely safe, and yet as a consumer (and buyer) I still would like the right to at least know about it so I can make my own uninformed decision ;)
     
    MX and IkeEsq like this.
  17. IkeEsq

    IkeEsq Gold Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    2,160
    Status Points:
    1,170
    Maybe I am a little dense, but are you suggesting that there was not a huge public outcry about 'pink slime?' And that there was not a campaign to ban it from schools, stores, restaurants, etc.? Really? BPI just shut down three of their four factories and laid off 700 workers because they were tired of making money selling the stuff?

    What BPI claims is that the outcry and campaign were caused by knowingly false and intentionally malicious statements as opposed to altruistic whistle blowers. Those allegations are just that, allegations. However, the results of the statements are easily verifiable facts. A public outcry ensued as did a campaign to ban this product. With a drop in demand came a reduction in supply.
     
  18. IkeEsq

    IkeEsq Gold Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    2,160
    Status Points:
    1,170
    :) Just pointing out that most people at least attempt to give the impression that they have some idea about the topics on which they pontificate.
     
    HaveMilesWillTravel likes this.
  19. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,503
    Likes Received:
    20,197
    Status Points:
    16,520
    I prefer honesty, so I didn't mind the upfront disclaimer ;)
     
    IkeEsq likes this.
  20. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,503
    Likes Received:
    20,197
    Status Points:
    16,520
    I assume the slime material is not thrown away now, but rather turned into dog food or something like that. So new jobs there?
     
  21. gleff
    Original Member

    gleff Co-founder

    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    6,793
    Status Points:
    4,670
    I understand that's the claim being made.

    Well, I did graduate from Google Law School. ;)

    And I suspect my attempt at modesty was unintentionally lost. I simply meant o convey that I do not know more about the specifics of the case than has been reported, and I was recognizing that it's often the case that material information is omitted in this sort of reporting so that any thought or conclusion I might offer was at best tentative.

    As I was trying to suggest, it's sometimes not in the interest of a company to pursue legal claims against someone when doing so will only re-circulate the very claims which were damaging in the first instance.

    Because pursuing those claims often doesn['t lead to actual vindication.

    And because even if it leads to legal vindication, that can be cold comfort when the real-world consequences -- the very thing a company would be suing because of -- could be exascerbated rather than ameliorated despite a 'win' in court or settlement.
     
    MX and HaveMilesWillTravel like this.
  22. IkeEsq

    IkeEsq Gold Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    2,160
    Status Points:
    1,170
    You understand that now or you did before? :p

    Tsk, tsk. From a travel blogger the proper response is "No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night." The added irony of you staying at a Holiday Inn Express would have been especially poignant. :)
     
  23. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,503
    Likes Received:
    20,197
    Status Points:
    16,520
    It's a sentence that will never come across Gary's lips, I bet :)
     
  24. gleff
    Original Member

    gleff Co-founder

    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    6,793
    Status Points:
    4,670
    Well I have stayed in many a Hilton Garden Inn. And Four Points. And Holiday Inns. I haven't actually ever stayed in a Holiday Inn Express, though there's a former HIX that's now a Kimpton property where I've at least had brunch. Quite awhile since I've stayed at a Hampton... And yes, I've stayed at a Fairfield too...
     
    HaveMilesWillTravel likes this.
  25. LarryInNYC

    LarryInNYC Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Status Points:
    1,445
    From the material in this thread (which is the source you cited), one is not able to make any statement about any of the facts that you allege. The only material in this thread bearing on the facts of the case is the article reprinted in the first post. That article discusses primarily an announcement and allegations by Beef Products, Inc. and obliquely mentions a "publicity storm", but no factual information is given as to whether there was, in fact, any sort of an organized campaign nor whether BPI really did close down three factories, nor whether, if they did close those factories, the negative publicity about their product was wholly or partially to blame.

    You may feel you know the answer to those questions from information you have gleaned outside this thread. If so, those answers are not obvious to anyone who has read only this thread. If you want that information considered by anyone reading this thread you should at least include links to it.

    For my part, although I've seen the term "pink slime", I haven't read any information about the case other than the article that started that thread. From that article (and the other material in this thread) I know only that the company states those things happened, not that they actually did happen. I also note that the company has announced that they will file a lawsuit, but is unable or unwilling to say who the lawsuit is against, which doesn't inspire me with confidence in the ultimate success of the action.

    I don't mean to split hairs. Perhaps there is smoking gun evidence somewhere that their was an organized, tortuous campaign (as opposed to a spontaneous eruption of negative publicity) intended to harm BPI. That evidence, however, is not contained in the original post, or anywhere in this thread (at least, up until the time I made my comment).
     

Share This Page