OPRAH CAN'T BEEF AFTER COURT VICTORY.

Byline: Tim Jones Chicago Tribune 

Declaring ``free speech not only lives, it rocks,'' a relieved and jubilant Oprah Winfrey bounded out of a federal courthouse Thursday with a decisive victory over a group of Texas cattlemen who claimed the talk-show host defamed beef on her program.

Barely two hours after beginning its second day of deliberations, the eight-woman, four-man jury from Texas cattle country cleared Winfrey, her production company and a guest on her program of charges that they knowingly made false and disparaging statements about beef, the economic lifeblood of the Texas Panhandle.

The cattlemen said they will appeal the verdict, but the biggest trial - and show - to hit this wind-swept city in many years is over.

While the trial and the issue of libeling meat drew snickers across the nation and world from many who viewed the case as frivolous and little more than a curious celebrity circus, the potential First Amendment implications of the 5-1/2-week-long trial were enormous.

By exonerating Winfrey from any legal liability, the jury also cast doubt on the viability of laws in 13 states outlawing the defamation of perishable products and - for the moment - removed a threat to the right of free expression in talk shows, public forums and the media.

``I will continue to use my voice,'' Winfrey told a whooping and hollering crowd outside the A. Marvin Jones Federal Building. ``I believed from the beginning this was an attempt to muzzle that voice. I come from a people who have struggled and died in order to have a voice in this country, and I refuse to be muzzled.''

This unusual trial tested the elasticity of First Amendment freedoms and raised still-unresolved issues about the media's responsible use of free speech. The jury was not convinced that the cattlemen's product - namely, the U.S. beef supply - was defamed by Winfrey, but questions raised about the talk show's fairness - which was not a legal issue in the case - resonated with some jurors.

``We didn't like what we had to do, but we had to decide for the First Amendment,'' jury foreman Christie Sams told The Associated Press.

The cattlemen sued Winfrey shortly after the broadcast of an April 1996 program titled ``Dangerous Food,'' which included a segment on the British livestock epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, known as mad-cow disease, which kills cattle and was blamed for more than a dozen human deaths. The theme of the segment dealt with the safety of U.S. beef and asked whether mad-cow disease could occur in America.

During the show, Winfrey emphatically swore off hamburgers in response to beef safety concerns raised by vegetarian activist Howard Lyman. Beef futures prices took a nose dive. After cattleman complained that they didn't get a fair hearing on the show, Winfrey broadcast a second program on beef safety a week later.

That didn't stop the cattlemen from suing Winfrey, Lyman and Harpo Productions Inc. for $12 million in damages.

In remarks to reporters outside the courthouse, plaintiff attorney Joseph Coyne and Amarillo cattleman Paul Engler put a positive spin on their legal setback. Engler said he was satisfied that the lawsuit had reinforced public confidence in the safety of domestically produced beef. Coyne said the lawsuit amounted to a convincing warning shot across the bow of the nation's talk shows, cautioning them to be more responsible.

``I think before (Winfrey) puts people on the air, not knowing what they are going to say and whether they have facts, they'll check and do their homework,'' he said.

The cost of the lawsuit alone may be incentive enough. Charles Babcock, Winfrey's attorney, acknowledged that the legal bill will ``approach seven figures.'' To Winfrey, who at considerable expense moved her program to Amarillo when the trial started Jan. 20 and taped the last two programs Thursday night, there was never any question she would fight the lawsuit.

``I never considered settling (out of court) because I never felt I did anything wrong,'' Winfrey told reporters.

The case was originally filed under Texas' ``veggie libel law,'' which prohibits making defamatory statements about perishable products, including beef. But the presiding judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson, threw out the veggie-libel portion of the case Feb. 17, forcing the cattlemen to argue disparagement under the more difficult legal standard of Texas common law, which requires showing both specific damage to a product and malice. They also faced a bigger obstacle in trying to overcome the celebrity appeal of Winfrey.

The trial was initially seen as a very risky showdown for Winfrey, as it was to be argued in the heart of cattle country. From the beginning, though, she seemed to mesmerize Amarillo. Devoted fans would begin lining up outside the courthouse every day at 6 a.m., three hours before the court session, to catch a glimpse of Winfrey or, better yet, get into the courtroom.

Tickets to her nighttime show tapings were the hottest item in town. Winfrey's daily entrance and exit from the courthouse provoked honking car horns, shrieks of praise, God-bless-yous and marriage proposals. The hometown cattlemen suddenly found themselves challenging not only the world's most famous talk-show host but a modern-day cultural icon.

When asked whether he would sue Winfrey again if given the chance, Engler paused and said, ``I'd have to think about that.''

CAPTION(S):

Photo

PHOTO (color) Talk-show host Oprah Winfrey shares her joy Thursday after a Texas jury ruled in her favor.

L.M. Otero/Associated Press