Opinion: Letter

Frivolous lawsuits not a means of real change

This letter is in response to the Op-Ed piece by Holly Hartung (“Frivolous Lawsuits: The Only Way to Facilitate Change in America”) last Thursday. This article presents a poorly misguided argument that glorifies frivolous lawsuits in the American system without presenting a shred of evidence that they actually make a difference. It also fails to acknowledge the great harm these suits cause by reducing our ability to take responsibility for our actions.

We are living in the days that you can sue a corporation for just about anything. My coffee is too hot. I’m too fat. The ice is melting too quickly. Only in one of the above examples was any change wrought, that being in the form of a caution label on fast food coffee. And I doubt anyone would call this a great societal change. Hartung offers no compelling evidence why these lawsuits change anything for the better. She cites a failed case in the fast food suit, but in the next paragraph acknowledges little was changed as an outcome. These lawsuits frequently produce no change when they are thrown out. So why tab them as a catalyst for change?

These lawsuits also create a lack of responsibility by refusing to force people to own up to their actions. If you’re too fat, maybe you should stop eating McDonalds for a while and start eating at home more. The oil companies are drilling in your backyard? Elect better representatives that will protect your interests and produce real, lasting change through legislation. Change won’t come from a ridiculous lawsuit that will likely never see the light of day. These lawsuits do great harm to our society by telling people they are not responsible for their actions and change little for good in the process. By Hartung’s criteria, you might as well have written an article claiming that blowing up buildings was the only hope for societal change. It’s potentially harmful to people, it’s purposeless and fundamentally changes our society. There you go! Change! Note: this contributor does not, I repeat, NOT support blowing up buildings as a means for societal change.

Lawsuits like these cheapen the concept of justice and responsibility in the United States. We as Americans are losing the ability to think for ourselves and take responsibility for things we have control over. If you slip on a sidewalk, be more careful and don’t sue the person who owns the house. Sure, the owner should have put some salt down, but you should have been watching where you were walking. These suits often change society by imposing more unnecessary rules, such as the caution label on coffee. Real suits, such as the one recently brought before the Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment and campaign finance laws are the real means to change, not frivolous lawsuits. Legal action in this country is crucial for to ensure that our rights are not violated, and legitimate cases are important to ensuring freedom. But frivolous lawsuits often cause more harm than good, and create meaningless change.

Jon Alfuth (alfuth@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science.

Have a thought? We welcome your input, but please be polite and stay on topic wherever possible. Your comment may be deleted if it is inappropriately off topic or promotional or if it is unnecessarily rude or contains personal attacks. We may delete comments for other reasons as well. Just keep it simple and focus on your points as respectfully as possible.

We allow and encourage comments employing satire, wit and irony to make points. Do not flag comments just because you disagree. Flagged comments will be immunized from further flagging unless they stray far from the guidelines and do not add to the discussion. Before flagging a comment you think is offensive, consider your time might be better spent rebutting it than censoring it.

blog comments powered by Disqus

4 older comments

user-pic

Frivolous lawsuits won’t change a thing. Tax revolts, however, will ram change down the throats of our clueless leaders in Washington. And they won’t be able to do a damn thing about it. The government of the “greatest nation in the world” wouldn’t even dream of leaning on its own citizens, not with the rest of the world watching.

user-pic

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8d3b076bd4de14bbda5aba699e80621d&tab=core&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck=

11:00PM has a point. The IRS agents are the nominal successors to the guys who took down Al Capone. If they weren’t scared of Scarface, what makes people who call for “tax revolts” think the T-Men will be scared of the average yokel who refuses to pay their taxes?

user-pic

This response is utterly pointless. Obviously Hartung knew that these particular law suits revolve ignorance and greed for her title clearly states “Frivolous lawsuits”. Key word: frivolous. The purpose of her article was to portray the idea that while most all of these types of law suits are completely bogus, this particular one might help to spark environmental change. Her essay circled the pathetic fact that it takes a lawsuit as FRIVOLOUS as this one to generate awareness towards the controversial topic of climate change. Re- read her article with that though in mind and then lets hear what you have to say.

Donate