Canadian Hotel Sues Guest For $95K Over Bad Review, Bed Bugs

An anonymous reader writes "A guest at at Quebec hotel was bitten by bed bugs, brought some down to the front desk and asked for new room. While the fully booked hotel offers to get him another room in a different hotel, he stays out the night then leaves — telling people at the hotel — some of whom also check out. When he wrote about it on Trip Advisor, the hotel demanded he take it down and when he did they sued him for $95,000."

Comments

Free speech

[MooseTick]

Free speech is for those people who know how to keep their mouths shut!

Re:Free speech

[GrBear]

It was more likely he was sued because his review wasn't bilingual. This IS Quebec we're talking about afterall.

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Moot, because there is no "freedom of speech" in Canada. Tons of people think there is, but there is not.

In any case, I doubt this hotel will win the suit, as long as there actually were bed bugs. If this guy made it up, he is screwed.

Re:Free speech

[FunPika]

The hotel is not denying that this guy had bedbugs in his room on the night of his stay. Apparently the hotel's justification for suing comes down to them believing that only his room was infested, and that this was an isolated incident.

Re:Free speech

[CptPicard]

Brilliant. A bit like Finland these days :-)

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Just plain wrong.

Link

"Freedom of speech in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Re:Free speech

[ackthpt]

Free speech is for those people who know how to keep their mouths shut!

C-eh-N-eh-D-eh, not YOOSA

Re:Free speech

[JDAustin]

Tell that to those who have been dragged in front of various human rights commissions for exercising their freedom of speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean's_magazine

Re:Free speech

[JustOK]

Quebec is NOT bilingual.

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you call in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada
Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Re: Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the me too posts like this one. Why do you always have to bring the US up?

Re:Free speech

[roc97007]

The hotel is not denying that this guy had bedbugs in his room on the night of his stay. Apparently the hotel's justification for suing comes down to them believing that only his room was infested, and that this was an isolated incident.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as "only one room infested with bed bugs" in a hotel. (Think about how they're serviced.) This could be an entertaining lawsuit. The problem I see is that the hotel taking him to court puts even more media attention on the hotel being infested.

Re:Free speech

[Shark]

The very first paragraph of that document also states clearly that the government only protects those freedoms so long as it deems reasonable to do so. There is no definition of what they think is reasonable. Regardless, the government does not acknowledge that the freedoms are yours to begin with, they are granted to you on their good will to do so and are theirs to offer or deny.

Re:Free speech

[Em Adespoton]

This is trumped by hate speech laws, for example. It stands in all cases where it is not overridden for some reason thought reasonable by the legal system. So lawsuits can happen about anything, and will come to court as long as the plaintiff can convince the judge that the nullification of freedom of expression is reasonable in this instance.

Seems like in this case, they're trying to trump freedom of expression with libel/slander laws. Possible, but not likely in this case, and this is NOT the kind of publicity a hotel should be wanting to bring on itself.

Re:Free speech

[JustOK]

New Brunswick is the only bilingual province. Quebec is uni-lingual.

Re:Free speech

[nurb432]

Do they have the same protection up there as we do down here in the US?

Re:Free speech

[arashi no garou]

His review was of his room; he didn't sleep in the entire hotel and didn't claim to find the bugs anywhere but his own room. I'm no lawyer but the backlash from doing something as stupid as suing a customer for telling the truth will likely cost the chain much more than the $95k they wanted from him. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up paying him in the end (or at least his legal fees).

Re:Free speech

[Quasimodem]

No. Canadians don't have the inalienable right to as many revolvers, automatic pistols and assault rifles as do Americans, and even if they did, they would still lack the license to use them in the same way Americans in states with "Stand your ground" laws do.

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech has never been unlimited. There isn't a country in the world that has unlimited freedom of speech (standard example: yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre). It's fair to say that Canada's hate crime laws do place more limitations on the right than some countries do. Specifically, you can express what you want "to the exception of acts of violence and threats of violence" (e.g., you can't claim that my fist hitting your face is an "act of expression" protected by the Charter), but it's still the case that unless you're being threatening or inciting hatred (e.g., "people of a certain background should be killed"), you can pretty much say what you like. More importantly in this case, hate crime laws aren't the least bit relevant to the situation. The facts are a valid defence if you are accused of slander or libel when expressing yourself, which is a protected right. The End.

I mean, sheesh. Even the example you cite from MacLean's was dismissed from the relevant tribunals, even though the articles were pretty darn awful and/or provocative, depending upon your perspective. In the end, the articles were considered protected speech. If you think they didn't even deserve to go to a tribunal for consideration, and people shouldn't have been "dragged" up there to consider the question, then I don't think you really understand how these things are supposed to work. You don't generally dismiss public complaints without any consideration at all.

Somewhat ironically, I personally don't think we need the kind of babying that the Human Rights Commissions provide. I'm quite able to recognize hateful stuff and give it the derision it deserves. I don't like the para-legal way these commissions work, and I think the hate crime laws go too far. I think the conventional laws prohibiting threats and such were good enough, if properly enforced. But claiming these laws are a significant barrier to free speech is a bit ridiculous, given that I see plenty of hateful stuff expressed all the time and people face no repercussions beyond the equally hateful comments made by people disagreeing with them. That's what freedom of expression is all about.

Re:Free speech

[shutdown -p now]

The very first paragraph of that document also states clearly that the government only protects those freedoms so long as it deems reasonable to do so. There is no definition of what they think is reasonable.

Not quite. The specific formulation is:
"the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"

So they have to demonstrably justify every instance of restricting the freedoms. This is subject to judicial review, and the Supreme Court of Canada has established a test for it. It is still subjective, but it is not something that is decided unilaterally by the legislature.

Re:Free speech

[Jakdaxsage]

Not to mention Westboro Baptist.

Re:Free speech

[aristotle-dude]

This is trumped by hate speech laws, for example. It stands in all cases where it is not overridden for some reason thought reasonable by the legal system. So lawsuits can happen about anything, and will come to court as long as the plaintiff can convince the judge that the nullification of freedom of expression is reasonable in this instance.

Seems like in this case, they're trying to trump freedom of expression with libel/slander laws. Possible, but not likely in this case, and this is NOT the kind of publicity a hotel should be wanting to bring on itself.

Here is the thing of it. Hate speech laws are not about trumping anything but rather balancing out the rights of two different individuals and their rights. With hate speech, you are threatening the fundamental rights from section 1 which are life, liberty and security of person. This differs from the American version which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If your life is being threatened then you cannot exercise the right to life or security of person effectively. This is a fundamental and important difference between the two systems. In Canada, you have to be able to feel "free" in order to be free and it focuses on individual security rather than security of the state or society.

If the Americans had the right to security of person, perhaps they would not have such a huge surveillance state.

Re:Free speech

[shutdown -p now]

Also note that this isn't really fundamentally different from the situation in the USA, where the same thing exists by convention. If the First Amendment, for example, was absolute, it would be protecting slander and libel, imminent threats, arbitrary disclosure of classified information etc - but it does not.

Re:Free speech

[Livius]

The civil service is officially French. The province itself is officially bilingual.

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal heard the complaint in June 2008 and issued a ruling on October 10, 2008 dismissing the complaint. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the federal complaint on June 26, 2008 without referring the matter to a tribunal.

People can generally bring complaints about each other in modern countries. These were dismissed. To me it appears the system protected free speech. What is the alternative?

Re:Free speech

[realityimpaired]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as "only one room infested with bed bugs" in a hotel. (Think about how they're serviced.)

There is such a thing as "didn't have bed bugs until his arrival" however, so could be quite interesting....

Re: Free speech

[margeman2k3]

Try?
They successfully removed the apostrophe from Tim Horton's.

Re: Free speech

[gagol]

So, a story involve, hummm, lets say italy legal apparatus. Would you bring up german laws 'cause they are in the same continent? Don't you know who thay are? Your point adds nothing to this thread.

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked in 3 hotels for about 6 years, big names, one was a Bestwestern. In all three hotels, we got bed bugs on a regular basis. We have protocols on how to put the room and the linens in quarantine as soon as this is discovered. Then we call someone to spray something ll over the room to kill the bed bugs. It's also common thing to put in quarantine the rooms beside the affected room.

So there is such a thing as "only one room infested", I also think that the guest over-reacted... Was it it's first time in an hotel ?

I still agree that the hotel should not sue the guest, maybe just explaining to the public what I just said... Informing them.

Re:Free speech

[Mr. Slippery]

If the First Amendment, for example, was absolute, it would be protecting slander and libel, imminent threats, arbitrary disclosure of classified information etc - but it does not.

Slander and libel are civil torts, not criminal charges brought under any law made by Congress (or the states) to restrict the freedom of speech.

Assault is based not merely on the content of the message but the circumstances. If you say, "I'm gonna punch Mr. Slippery in the nose!" that's protected speech; if you say it while walking towards me with you fist raised, it's a different matter.

The government has no legitimate power to prevent civilians from disclosing "classified" information.

Re:Free speech

[Man On Pink Corner]

Sorry, but "life, liberty, and security of person" does not include the right to remain unoffended.

Threats are a different legal matter; separate 'hate speech' laws aren't needed to make physical threats illegal. They are as illegal here in the US as they are in Canada.

Re:Free speech

[shutdown -p now]

Slander and libel are civil torts, not criminal charges brought under any law made by Congress (or the states) to restrict the freedom of speech.

Fine; how about copyright infringement?

Assault is based not merely on the content of the message but the circumstances. If you say, "I'm gonna punch Mr. Slippery in the nose!" that's protected speech; if you say it while walking towards me with you fist raised, it's a different matter.

Yes, it is a different matter - even though you are still not actually attacking anyone. It's the imminence of the lawless action that makes the speech criminal. But make no mistake, it is still the speech that is criminal here, since nothing else has happened yet.

Heck, even the court opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio presents it in those terms:
"These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The government has no legitimate power to prevent civilians from disclosing "classified" information.

Even those civilians that work for the government? Or are you saying that they should conscript anyone whom they need to have access to classified information for work purposes?

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what landlords say in Ontario and there's no recourse. You have to really be able to prove that the bugs were there before you and have made the landlord aware which is really difficult. Mostly here it's the tenants that get the burden, they do their room, the bugs go to the other rooms, and then they come back. Rinse and repeat.

Re: Free speech

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Shouldn't it be Hortons Tim?

Re:Free speech

[Mashiki]

The only part that's wrong is your post.

In Canada: S.1 stipulates, " The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

In other words all following sections including the "fundamental freedom" in S.2 exist at the behest of the government, courts, and all that jazz. This is why we have "hate crime" kangaroo courts up here, which could and in some cases still do walk all over you and your case will never be seen by a jury, or even a judge. But by appointed bureaucrats.

Re:Free speech

[ILongForDarkness]

One room infested but you get them repeatedly ... hmm might be a flaw in the method. Do the hotels close that room and the adjoining room because those are the only ones infested or because they don't want to lose business by vacating the hotel and spraying the whole thing? I had them at my house for about a year because an idiot that I rented to went to his buddies for a weekend party even though he knew his friend had them.

  These little critters are pretty much indestructible and can move just about as fast as an ant (not to mention could drop off someone/their bags as they are moving around the hotel). Someone reports the problem and a few hours go by before the treatment guys come around those little buggers could be anywhere. They go between walls, under wallpaper etc. The spray only kills them if they actually walk on it, what if they go into the next room over instead of coming out of the wall on the same side? You got to do the whole place at least twice about 2-3 weeks apart to kill both the adults and the eggs that hatch and become adults the next couple weeks since the poisons only kill the adults.

Re:Free speech

[LifesABeach]

Did the lawyer represent the bed bugs, or the hotel owner?

Re:Free speech

[roc97007]

I worked in 3 hotels for about 6 years, big names, one was a Bestwestern. In all three hotels, we got bed bugs on a regular basis. We have protocols on how to put the room and the linens in quarantine as soon as this is discovered. Then we call someone to spray something ll over the room to kill the bed bugs. It's also common thing to put in quarantine the rooms beside the affected room.

So there is such a thing as "only one room infested", I also think that the guest over-reacted... Was it it's first time in an hotel ?

I still agree that the hotel should not sue the guest, maybe just explaining to the public what I just said... Informing them.

I understand what you're saying (and I have a friend who owns a motel, so hear many of these stories first hand).

The operative word to me, in this case, is infested. It's absolutely true that a traveler could bring bed bugs into a room from clothing or luggage -- it happens all the time -- that's how they spread, after all. But usually there are only a few, perhaps even in the single digits, and they take time to propagate to what a reasonable person would call "an infestation".

As rooms are cleaned daily (in most hotels), and as a few bedbugs take time to turn into an infestation, there's usually plenty of time for the cleaning crew to come in and out of the room, perhaps changing sheets, surely changing towels, brushing against bedclothes as they make the bed (even if they don't change sheets daily), taking stuff on and off the cleaning cart, and generally doing all the things that allow bedbugs to travel to other locales. And then they do the same operations in supposedly non-infested rooms, transporting bugs to those rooms. Although one or more travelers were almost certainly the original vector, it is the cleaning crew that spreads them throughout the rest of the hotel.

Now, if the guy was exaggerating, and there was only, maybe, two or four bedbugs that got him during the night, I could believe that the bugs were left by a previous resident. But an infestation... that implies a large colony, and in that environment, a colony does not stay in one place for any appreciable time.

So yeah, an infestation in one room tells me that in all probability the entire hotel has a problem.

Re: Free speech

[mooingyak]

I love the me too posts like this one. Why do you always have to bring the US up?

Any free speech story on slashdot inevitably involves international comparisons. If this had happened in the US, I'd expect comments about Canadian free speech laws as well as a variety of European ones. Likely Australian ones too.

Re:Free speech

[Beardo the Bearded]

He doesn't need to, as the loser will pay the winner's court costs up here.

They have nothing to stand on legally, and the fact that their lawyers let this go through is astonishing.

Libel has to be false, and in this case he honestly believes it to be true. The hotel has zero legal standing, and there's a good chance that the judge will... ... oh wait, this is Quebec, so they'd be using Napoleonic code vs Common. I really don't know what would happen, but if it got to SCC, they'd toss it. That's about a million bucks in legal fees start to finish though.

Re:Free speech

[Beardo the Bearded]

In Canada, you can face 5 years in prison for uttering a threat.

And yes, freedom of speech is listed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Re:Free speech

[Ol Olsoc]

It was more likely he was sued because his review wasn't bilingual. This IS Quebec we're talking about afterall.

I've never known Quebec to be bilingual, That's something the rest of the country has to do.

At least that is how it works when we go from Ottawa to Hull. English disappears.

Re:Free speech

[lgw]

Bedbugs are happy to hitchhike in luggage, but only a few would come that way. A big bedbug infestation takes time to grow.

Re:Free speech

[Ol Olsoc]

New Brunswick is the only bilingual province. Quebec is uni-lingual.

That's been my experience. I havent' been over the whole country, but it seems that the closer you get to Ottawa, the more bilingual it gets,

Re:Free speech

[lgw]

. Then we call someone to spray something ll over the room to kill the bed bugs.

I'm not aware of any poison that works on bedbugs - is there really one? Heat works well - get a room up over 120 and keep it there for a day (even inside the walls), or over 140 for a few hours. Washing cloths does nothing, but the dryer on hot works great by all accounts.

I somehow doubt the hotel was bedbug-free after "spraying something". More likely the population was reduced to where they weren't obvious, only to "mysteriously" re-appear.

Re:Free speech

[Mr. Slippery]

If your life is being threatened then you cannot exercise the right to life or security of person effectively.

Making a credible threat against someone's life isn't "hate speech". It's assault, a crime since the old days of common law.

When the state threatens someone over their speech -- in essence, points a gun at them and says "STFU or we throw you in a cage" -- that denies that individual's "security of person".

Re:Free speech

[lgw]

I also think that the guest over-reacted

I don't think there is such a thing. If he had burned the hotel to the ground and detonated a small nuclear device in the rubble, I'd admire his restraint.

Bedbugs need to become extinct as a species. A biological weapon is the best approach, IMO. If it accidentally takes out a few thousand other species, that's just acceptable collateral damage.

Re:Free speech

[lgw]

Here is the thing of it. Hate speech laws are not about trumping anything but rather balancing out the rights of two different individuals and their rights. With hate speech, you are threatening the fundamental rights from section 1 which are life, liberty and security of person. This differs from the American version which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Bullshit. Incitement to violence is illegal in the US. Hate speech is not that, or rather it's vastly broader: it's politically unacceptable speech. Yeah, the government protects my rights to politically acceptable speech - that's some freedom there.

Most people really only believe in freedom of speech that doesn't offend them.

Re:Free speech

[lgw]

Canadians have a lot of long arms. Do they really have "scary black guns" laws? America doesn't actually have laws against assault rifles, of course, but I'm sure the ban on bayonet mounts saved thousands of lives while it was in effect.

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Overreacted? If I go to a hotel and it had bed bugs, I'm sure as hell going to post a review of my shitty experience in a bed bug room.

Re:Free speech

[ralphaostrander]

No such spray that kills bed bugs. It is expensive for pros to come and heat the room to kill them and even that might not be 100 percent. We dont go to hotels any more because this is so epidemic.

Re:Free speech

[Pinhedd]

No it is not.

The Quebec government has repeatedly used the notwithstanding clause to limit the use of languages other than French (mostly aimed at English) on matters that fall under provincial legislative purview. Only federal matters are fully bilingual.

Re: Free speech

[GrahamJ]

Posting it on the Internet would also be good.

Re:Free speech

[LordLimecat]

Its possible that this article is rubbish: I wasnt able to get any google results for "Jacques Robitaille lawsuit" or "Jacques Robitaille bedbug" except for TFA-- and it does not name any sources. This part of the story:
n the middle of the night, Laurent woke with a startle as he felt bed bugs biting his leg.
Also sounds like rubbish, as you dont feel bedbugs biting you: thats why theyre such a nuisance, you wake up in the morning with a rash. They wouldnt be much of a parasite if their host could feel them feeding.

Maybe Im wrong, its just hugely suspicious that theres no source or record to be found of this lawsuit other than a "I heard that..." off of tripadvisor.

Re:Free speech

[LordLimecat]

Where are you getting this? I wasnt able to find an actual source for anything in TFA, much less an actual statement by the hotel. Or is hearsay now sufficient for a slashdot article?

Re:Free speech

[Mr. Slippery]

Fine; how about copyright infringement?

How about it? First Amendment, coming later, trumps Article I Section 8. If a "copyright" law interferes with freedom of speech, it goes out the window.

But make no mistake, it is still the speech that is criminal here, since nothing else has happened yet.

Speech alone does not constitute assault. For "imminent lawless action" to be a factor, there must be preparations for that lawless action taking place. No content, by itself, can be criminalized; only content delivered in a time, manner, and circumstance that violates the rights of someone else.

The government has no legitimate power to prevent civilians from disclosing "classified" information.

Even those civilians that work for the government? Or are you saying that they should conscript anyone whom they need to have access to classified information for work purposes?

Really, do you think that conscription is the only way that the government can get people to join the military?

If the government needs certain jobs done by people over whom it has more control than it has over civilians, then it needs to entice people who can do those jobs into joining the military.

Re:Free speech

[phantomfive]

If the Americans had the right to security of person, perhaps they would not have such a huge surveillance state.

Or potentially it could be worse. Didn't you see iRobot?

Re:Free speech

[shutdown -p now]

How about it? First Amendment, coming later, trumps Article I Section 8. If a "copyright" law interferes with freedom of speech, it goes out the window.

Realistically, copyright is law as it stands, and is universally recognized as such. You can claim that it's "unconstitutional", but your personal opinion on this matter is, plainly, irrelevant.

Also, the very people who have written the Constitution had no qualms about putting copyright into law in that same year. Don't you think that they may have had something different in mind in terms of meaning of 1A than you do?

Speech alone does not constitute assault. For "imminent lawless action" to be a factor, there must be preparations for that lawless action taking place.

There's nothing in the "imminent lawless action" standard that requires preparatory actions. it only requires that the action that would be caused by the speech were it not stopped would be clearly imminent.

Re:Free speech

[shutdown -p now]

The very same people who wrote the Constitution placed laws about things such as libel, slander and copyright infringement on the books of the country immediately afterwards. Clearly, they did not mean the freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to be absolute, at least in the way that you mean it.

Re: Free speech

[nemesisrocks]

Any free speech story on slashdot inevitably involves international comparisons. If this had happened in the US, I'd expect comments about Canadian free speech laws as well as a variety of European ones. Likely Australian ones too.

FYI, there's no such thing as free speech in Australia. We don't have any equivalent to the Bill of Rights (or Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

There's an implied freedom of speech in our constitution, but it's certainly not explicit. It's been tested a number of times (with the result going both ways) in the High Court.

Re:Free speech

[sg_oneill]

Yeah as someone who had the displeasure of having to erradicate my house of these horrifying bugs I picked up from a hotel (Seriously, it took nearly 6 months to finally be able to say they where gone. I have nightmares about those damn things and to this day I still have scars) , they do NOT just exist in one room. The little bastards spread as fast as they can and set up escape routes when sprayed.

Any hotel with bedbugs should be SHUT DOWN until a health department inspector can verify ALL of the bugs are gone, no ifs, no buts, mandatory shutdown. These things are a dangerous pandemic.

Re:Free speech

[Myopic]

Of course it is. People there speaks both French and Douchebag.

Actually the one friend I have from Quebec doesn't even speak one word of French or Douchebag, but he's the exception.

Re:Free speech

[Maxo-Texas]

I was wondering so I looked it up

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_fast_do_bedbugs_reproduce

"So it will take 3 weeks after the eggs hatch before the nymphs become adult bedbugs and you are unlikely to realise a bedbug infestation has started in your bed during this period as they only come out at night when you are likely to be fast asleep and when it is dark.

So once they have become adult bedbugs from then on the bedbugs will be able to reproduce and female bedbugs lay up to a dozen eggs per day! So in its first week one female adult bedbug may lay 70 or more bedbug eggs in or near your bed,"

Re: Free speech

[Guspaz]

This is Quebec, not Japan.

Re:Free speech

[ceoyoyo]

"It was more likely he was sued because his review had english in it. This IS Quebec we're talking about after all."

There. Probably mentioned "pasta" or something equally insidious.

Re:Free speech

[ceoyoyo]

Canada's hate speech laws specifically require that you incite hatred and violence against others:

Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].

— s. 319[1], Criminal Code of Canada

If I say "white people are dumbasses" that's legal. If I say "white people are dumbasses, we should corner them in dark alleys and kill them all," that's hate speech. Life, liberty and security of person DOES include the right not to have someone inciting violence against you.

Incidentally, although US courts have limited it's interpretation, "fighting words" are not protected in the US. So by the letter of the law, speech that offends someone else in the US is not protected.

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Interestingly, that decision stemmed from a case involving a Jehovah's witness getting arrested for calling a cop "a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist", clearly insulting but not inciting violence.

Re:Free speech

[You're All Wrong]

They only speak one language that's a hybrid of the two. It sounds like French, but it comes over as douchebag. Strangely, the French have this same hybrid as well.

Re:Free speech

[Marillion]

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression. What is not permissible is libel. If I went around saying I went to Joe's Restaurant and was a fly in my soup when there wasn't, the owners of Joe's Restaurant has every right to defend their character.

Re:Free speech

[Pseudonym Authority]

No.

Re:Free speech

[RedBear]

Any hotel with bedbugs should be SHUT DOWN until a health department inspector can verify ALL of the bugs are gone, no ifs, no buts, mandatory shutdown. These things are a dangerous pandemic.

Dangerous pandemic? How so? Last time I was researching bedbugs I was surprised to find out that, unlike other blood suckers like ticks and mosquitos, bedbugs do not transmit disease. They are just irritants. Shutting down an entire hotel because they found a few bedbugs seems a bit extreme. Especially given that it probably wouldn't accomplish much. A new infestation could be brought in on somebody's luggage the same day they reopen.

Re: Free speech

[gagol]

Why are americans so egocentric?

Re:Free speech

[malacandrian]

That's why you need alternative treatments.

Re:Free speech

[dargaud]

They may not transmit deadly diseases like ticks or mosquitoes, but the only time I was exposed to bedbugs, each bite led to an allergic reaction as big as an egg that lasted for a week (with medication).

Re:Free speech

[FunPika]

I was basing it on this from TFA "The hotel does not dispute the presence of bed bugs that night but vehemently asserts Mr. Azoulay’s room was the only one affected in the hotel and chain at large. No other incidents of the kind have been reported at least in recent history, and the hotel has vowed to do everything it can to avoid a recurrence of the issue." They say only the guy's room was affected, and I summarized the no other incidents part as "isolated incident" to avoid having to type that whole thing out.

Re:Free speech

[sproketboy]

I live in Quebec and I can assure you this is not funny.

Re:Free speech

[Half-pint HAL]

Assault is based not merely on the content of the message but the circumstances. If you say, "I'm gonna punch Mr. Slippery in the nose!" that's protected speech; if you say it while walking towards me with you fist raised, it's a different matter.

Yes, it is a different matter - even though you are still not actually attacking anyone. It's the imminence of the lawless action that makes the speech criminal. But make no mistake, it is still the speech that is criminal here, since nothing else has happened yet.

Seriously? That's not assault and should not be criminal. However, it should be enough to justify Mr. Slippery acting in self-defence. The only time threats of violence should be criminalised is when they are persistent and repeated. That's harassment. But having a bad day and losing your rag is a different matter.

Re:Free speech

[Kjella]

Bullshit. Incitement to violence is illegal in the US. Hate speech is not that, or rather it's vastly broader: it's politically unacceptable speech. Yeah, the government protects my rights to politically acceptable speech - that's some freedom there.

Direct, imminent and specific incitement to violence yes, speech to condition a population into going along with genocide or other violations of fundamental civil rights no. Hitler (yeah, pretty hard not to Godwin this thread) didn't go out and say "kill all the jews", but he likened them to rats and other pests. He left people to work out on their own - with fairly obvious clues - that what Nazi Germany needed was pest control. He didn't need to it directly, it didn't need to be imminent and he didn't have to point out any specific targets or methods but the overall meaning was very clear. It's like claiming the Mafia isn't making a threat when they're saying "Pretty shop you got there, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it". Hate speech has the same goal, it's just wrapped in a nicer package.

Re:Free speech

[usuallylost]

A quick search on EPA's web site lists 41 products are registered with the EPA for killing bed bugs. Judging by the list of active ingredients it looks like there are at least six pesticides that will kill bed bugs.

EPA-Registered Bed Bug Products

Re: Free speech

[Wovel]

How did the guest over react? If bed bugs are as common as you say, than housekeeping should be checking for them and guests should not be put in Infested rooms.

I think you are confused about who is clearly wrong here.

Re:Free speech

[diodeus]

Fortunately THE TRUTH is a pretty damn good defense for this type of lawsuit.

Re: Free speech

[QBasicer]

Reminds me of "Reno Depot", not sure why they changed the name AND the colour, but whatever.

Re:Free speech

[ArcadeMan]

Holy hell, heat up a room to 120 or even over 140? Are you fucking insane, water boils at 100!

Re:Free speech

[i kan reed]

People actually died from someone shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's not a hypothetical. The dead can't exercise their natural rights at all.

Re:Free speech

[b4upoo]

Carbon dioxide works great on bed bugs. If you can seal off the room and fill it with CO2 they are dead meat. Or if you can get the heat up to about 140 degrees the devils will perish as well.
                        Dry Ice is a bit pricey but if you covered the area with blocks of dry ice and then put a tarp over the bed and upholstered items and carpet that should knock them down pretty hard.
                        Sadly bed bugs are awfully good at finding little paths to get from room to room. In other words you may have to fight the battle more than once.

Re:Free speech

[shutdown -p now]

No-one said that it is an "assault". The point is that it is a kind of speech that is not protected by 1A under the standing interpretation of it, and so laws may be written to restrict it (e.g. as "incitement to riot").

It's not about "having a bad day and losing your rag". It is specifically about when you direct your speech to rile up some other people to perform an illegal act, and only at such a point in that speech where them performing the act becomes imminent (to give a specific example, a KKK guy who called for "revengeance upon the niggers" at a rally was found not guilty under this interpretation, because he did not call it for begin right there and then, but rather at some indefinite time - and the crowd was not inclined to take it as "here and now", either).

Re:Free speech

[b4upoo]

In the US he would win as the truth is an absolute defense. But Canada is quite different and I'm not so sure he would win in Canada. His degree of upset may be deemed unreasonable and his actions irresponsible to the hotel. Also in the US we can report on issues that are in litigation. I'm not certain that Canada allows reporting until after the case is settled. In the US fear of publicity tends to force settlements.

Re:Free speech

[Cassini2]

120 - 140 Degrees Fahrenheit

About 50 to 60 Degrees Celsius

Re:Free speech

[idontgno]

Redundant. "Douche" is French.

Re:Free speech

[cmdr_klarg]

Did the lawyer represent the bed bugs, or the hotel owner?

The bed bugs, obviously. Bloodsuckers have to watch out for each other, you know?

Re:Free speech

[dubbreak]

This. You can also tell by what state they are in and whether there is shedded skin. As they become adults they shed a layer. That's not going to happen in a matter of hours. Also any signs of eggs etc. I experienced this in a hotel in Florida. They didn't deny the infestation (didn't even feign surprise), but they insisted we pay for the first night despite not having stayed.

I got on their Facebook page and started Tweeting relentlessly. They locked their twitter account and made the Facebook page private. No BS libel suit though. Of course we had 3 rooms in different wings all in various stages of infection. They did manage to get my tripadvisor review pulled (claiming I didn't stay there). If I didn't stay there then why do I have a bill for the night? Can't have it both ways. Tripadvisor wasn't interested in my receipt, they just said to post it again and make sure there is nothing in the wording that sounds like I didn't stay there.

Personally I'd sick the local health authority on them. I've done that to local restaurants (after getting food poisoning) and in the case of the Florida hotel I even sought out their local inspectors. A bad review may or may not hurt them. A failed inspection can have them shut down and protects your ass against a libel suit.

Re:Free speech

[magarity]

Guy should countersue when he finds that he brought the critters home with him (and he probably will).

Then the hotel can post a counter-review about his place on Google Maps complaining about the bed bugs there.

Re:Free speech

[cthulhu11]

... if the guy can get enough lawyer muscle to see it through. In the US at least, describing what happened should be his right, if he told anyone to not check in because of it, that might be actionable. Like the shitstain pub across the street from me - the owner has threatened to call the cods if my 4 year old steps on the property to watch ceiling fans through the windows. I haven't told anyone to not give him business, but I relate what's happened.

Re:Free speech

[Emb3rz]

Allergy. Like peanuts. I say ban peanuts. :)

Re:Free speech

[shiftless]

The problem I see is that the hotel taking him to court puts even more media attention on the hotel being infested.

You know what's even worse than the Streisand Effect?

I don't know but I bet being Barbra Streisand is probably worse.

Re:Free speech

[lsatenstein]

Quebec has a mentally bancrupt government.

Re:Free speech

[GoogleShill]

Yeah, bed bugs are a big problem for hotels, and I've dealt with the nightmare of eradicating them after bringing them back home with me. In this case, I think the hotel's response was fair. They offered to put him up in a different hotel AND pay him $40 for his trouble, and he declined that.

He had potentially exaggerated what had happened by labeling it an "infestation", when there is no way he could have known it was. In fact, he could have inadvertently brought them into the hotel on his own luggage or clothing.

I'm not sure he should get sued, but the reviewer is definitely a dick.

Re:Free speech

[triffid_98]

I feel the same way about lead, asbestos and creosote. All four are both phenomenally more effective than their 'green' counterparts but legislating that people 'use common sense' doesn't seem to work.

There was even a time when you didn't need to because our police and judges actually had some.

What's that again? Your client freebased 10 lbs of DDT and now he has lung cancer? Wow that's too bad, now GTFO of my courtroom before I hold you in contempt for wasting my time. Next case please.

Re:Free speech

[LunaticTippy]

You most certainly do notice a serious infestation. you don't notice at first, when there are only a few bugs. When there are thousands of them, swarming at once it is unmistakable.

Many people don't feel their bites or show marks, but many others have a rapid and severe allergic reaction. An allergic person would wake up with itchy burning swollen lumps and then see bugs, even if there weren't very many.

As far as your googling, try en francais. A search for Jacques Robataille punaise shows many relevant hits.

Re:Free speech

[pgpalmer]

And THIS is a classic example as to why one should never assume that everyone else uses Fahrenheit. I use Celsius, and I was uncertain as to what unit of measurement was being used here.

Re:Free speech

[metrix007]

Where do you get that from?

I'm genuinely curious, I lived in Montreal for a year.

I always thought it was just the arrogance of the Quebecois that they refused to have anything to cater to the majority English speaking population, even though they put on quite the tantrum to make English speaking areas be bilingual.

Re:Free speech

[drkim]

The hotel is not denying that this guy had bedbugs in his room on the night of his stay. Apparently the hotel's justification for suing comes down to them believing that only his room was infested, and that this was an isolated incident.

However, he never claimed that the entire hotel chain was infested. He only stated in his review that his room was infested.

I don't know how it works in Canada; most of the time in the US, truth is an affirmative defense to libel or slander.

Re:Free speech

[robinsc]

Bed bugs are more a problem in wooden /plaster houses rather than cement concrete houses. In india all our haouses are cement/brick/concrete with paint and no carpets/linoleum so bedbugs are not so difficult to eliminate. My guess is that bedbugs in the us are a much bigger deal becuase of the way houses are constructed.

Re:Free speech

[sound vision]

I don't know of any peanuts that will hide in your house, track you down, then feed on you as you sleep.

Re:Free speech

[Emb3rz]

That's happened to me several times! You've really gotta read up on peanuts.

Re:Free speech

[lgw]

Fahrenheit of course. I only use the One True System of measure - the furlong/firkin/fortnight system. Naturally Fahrenheit is the units of that system, since it starts with an F and all.

Re:Free speech

[lgw]

Sure, if you're talking early in Hitler's career, when he was still making political speech, and not later when he was giving direct orders to kill all the Jews. The former is a right that must be supported. All change involves moving to a political position that was once totally unacceptable. You must have the freedom to advocate "totally unacceptable" changes, or you've severely constrained political speech.

Further, as soon as you give any government the power to make a list of things you're not allowed to say, it's only a matter of time before opposing the current government gets added to that list, bit by bit.

How did he dare to disturb the bed bugs?

[menegator]

How did he dare to disturb the bed bugs? Fine him!

Re:How did he dare to disturb the bed bugs?

[sjames]

Won't somebody think of the bedbugs?

Babs, look what you did again

[davebarnes]

When will businesses learn?
I know, never.

Re:Babs, look what you did again

[slashmydots]

Indeed. They couldn't have shot themselves in the foot any harder if Barbara Streissand got in a fight with Anderson Cooper's news crew in the lobby.

Re:Babs, look what you did again

[mcrbids]

Businesses aren't some unified group, they're just people like you and I trying to make it in a world that is often unfriendly. It's a small percentage of true douches (looking long and hard at you, Goldman Sachs) that give the name "businessman" a bad name.

Often, the schleps running such a business have no clue about things like the Streisand effect. Come to think of it, why don't you become a businessman and set the record straight? Surely, you could beat out this moron...

Re:Babs, look what you did again

[interkin3tic]

I'm confused. Why would someone shoot themselves in the foot after seeing that?

Re:Babs, look what you did again

[MooseTick]

"Often, the schleps running such a business have no clue about things like the Streisand effect."

Barbara Streisand herself was not even aware of the effect's existance!

You know the Hotel Quebec?

[Joining Yet Again]

I read somewhere that it is shit.

is it true that the Hotel Quebec is shit?

Could it be that it's full of cockroaches, and that the waiters ejaculate into the food?

Has anyone said that the manager hurls racial abuse at his staff and non-white customers?

Did anyone find any reports about guests having their personal property stolen by the room cleaners?

Re:You know the Hotel Quebec?

[Shoten]

I read somewhere that it is shit.

is it true that the Hotel Quebec is shit?

Could it be that it's full of cockroaches, and that the waiters ejaculate into the food?

Has anyone said that the manager hurls racial abuse at his staff and non-white customers?

Did anyone find any reports about guests having their personal property stolen by the room cleaners?

I did know this one waiter there.

"Do not watch. I can't go if you watch."

Apart from seasoning the lobster bisque, he farted on the meringue, sneezed on braised endive, and as for the cream of mushroom soup, well...

(chuckling in the background)

"Go ahead. Say it."

You get the idea.

Re:You know the Hotel Quebec?

[tibit]

You mean, the food would otherwise be so bad that added semen and cockroaches turs it back into something with nutritional value? Hmm....

Re:You know the Hotel Quebec?

[Jaysyn]

Glen Beck, is that you? ;D

mistake in editorial entry

[Anonymous Coward]

"the hotel demanded he take it down and when he did they sued him for $95,000.""
should be
"the hotel demanded he take it down and when he didn't, they sued him for $95,000.""

Re:mistake in editorial entry

[gweilo8888]

Mod parent up. Article summary is wrong.

Re:mistake in editorial entry

[gweilo8888]

He hasn't taken it down. It is still online: http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g155033-d183336-r158988363-L_hotel_Quebec-Quebec_City_Quebec.html Therefore the summary is demonstrably wrong.

Re:mistake in editorial entry

[ackthpt]

"the hotel demanded he take it down and when he did they sued him for $95,000.""
should be
"the hotel demanded he take it down and when he didn't, they sued him for $95,000.""

Honesty has its price. Dishonesty has its avarice.

Re:mistake in editorial entry

[Mitreya]

Mod parent up. Article summary is wrong.

But that's why we come to slashdot -- Two stories for the price of one!

The summary is usually different from the article and two separate discussion (one about summary another one about article) are carried out in the comments section. I assume this is intentional, because no editor would allow it otherwise, right? :)

Re:mistake in editorial entry

[rahvin112]

Welcome to slashdot, enjoy your stay.

Editorial review? Not here!

Re:mistake in editorial entry

[roc97007]

"the hotel demanded he take it down and when he did they sued him for $95,000.""
should be
"the hotel demanded he take it down and when he didn't, they sued him for $95,000.""

I was wondering about that. My first thought was "wow, he shoulda left it up".

Re:mistake in editorial entry

[similar_name]

Welcome to slashdot, enjoy your stay.

I think slashdot has bed bugs.

Re:mistake in editorial entry

[bitt3n]

He hasn't taken it down. It is still online: http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g155033-d183336-r158988363-L_hotel_Quebec-Quebec_City_Quebec.html Therefore the summary is demonstrably wrong.

he should sue slashdot for libel, demand $96K and make a profit

Re:mistake in editorial entry

[markov_chain]

This does not happen often on Slashdot, it was only this one story. The adjacent stories were all unaffected.

How can you win over facts?

[fructose]

Assuming that the story the guest told was true (and it seems it was, based on the hotel admitting it), how can the hotel possibly win when the reviewer is stating facts? If the review was completely made up, I would assume libel laws would side with the hotel. But when the whole situation is based on facts, and the reviewer is merely passing those facts on to the public, how can the hotel even expect to win?

The article is right, the hotel should have helped him out more from the get go instead of trying to do damage control.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[gp824]

Don't assume that civil law suits will be treated how they are in the US or in any other provinces in Canada. Quebec treats civil suits under French civil law.... a complex different system that we are used to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law

Re:How can you win over facts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on the country, he may prove that the situation is true (i.e. in the UK). In effect, the onus of proving that the hotel had bed bugs is on him, not on the hotel proving that it didn't have them.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[tibit]

This guy very much double screwed at this point. Whether he knows it or not, he has brought the bed bugs back home with him. It's only a matter of time until his house will be infested as well. I feel for him.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[mpoulton]

In many places, truth is not a defense. If it harms someone, it did harm. You can't badmouth certain industries in TX or FL, for example, regardless of the truth of the statements. Too bad free speech doesn't exist in the US anymore. We should move to some place more free, like Soviet Russia.

That is plainly incorrect. As a constitutional matter, truthful negative statements are protected speech in the United States. You have misinterpreted the precedent.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[sjames]

The hotel's admission that there were bedbugs in his room should be adequate there.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[mark-t]

I don't advocate the hotel's position here for one minute, but I think they might have a case under willful defamation.... even though true, the facts were publicly presented with malicious intent to publicly discredit them, where they were presumably making every effort to resolve the situation once they became aware of it.

I suspect it might come down to who has the better lawyer.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[Anonymous Coward]

While it isn't guaranteed to keep bed bugs from my luggage I generally travel light, if I stay in a hotel hang my bag in the bathroom preferably where it doesn't touch anything (shower door track works well) and leave the light on.

Bed bugs prefer darkness, if they have a dark area and a light area they will stay to the dark most of the time, they also typically move in 'protected' areas such as the crevices where carpeting meets the wall, under mattresses between couch cushions and such.

That leads to the bathroom which is typically tile or linoleum being the place they are least likely to hang out, check your bag and clothes before you leave as well. If the bathroom has its own heating control you can also turn that up a little, apparently they aren't too fond of heat either. While none of these steps will actually eliminate the chance of bring a bedbug home, they all can help to decease the chances.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[Anubis IV]

Having a right to say something is not the same as having a right to not be sued for saying something. You're discussing the criminality of saying something, when the issue here is strictly a civil one.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[TubeSteak]

Don't assume that civil law suits will be treated how they are in the US or in any other provinces in Canada. Quebec treats civil suits under French civil law.... a complex different system that we are used to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Louisiana
They don't use English Common Law as the basis for their system either.
Must make life interesting for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[epiphani]

A $40 refund and a room in another hotel down the street at 3am or later in the morning isn't exactly "every effort to resolve the situation".

Re:How can you win over facts?

[chrismcb]

the facts were publicly presented with malicious intent to publicly discredit them,

Isn't this the WHOLE point of negative reviews? I don't know Canadian law, but in America what this guy said should be protected. Basically you are saying no one can say anything bad about a business.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[Beardo the Bearded]

Last time I travelled (Belize) I left my luggage in the shed and called an exterminator before I brought it inside.

I washed everything hot as soon as they were done, it was all good.

It cost something like $60. It would have been a couple grand to get them out of the house.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[ILongForDarkness]

You have no such protection in Canada. Truth can be part of your defense but even then it doesn't guarantee that you won't be found to have defamed the injured party. We have more leeway to criticize people in public positions but even there the Supreme Court ruled that the truth isn't a sufficient defense. If the intent of your communication was to defame the truth of your statements doesn't matter. Some random guy that is never going to go back to that hotel anyways doesn't really have much reason to shoot his mouth/keyboard off other than to punish the Hotel. It is intentionally malicious. The counter argument he'd need to use to defend I think is that even though his intent was to damage/shame the Hotel he was communicating "in the public interest".

Re:How can you win over facts?

[ILongForDarkness]

Not in Canada.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[ILongForDarkness]

Not to mention he now made known that he knew he was exposed to bed bugs and went to the other hotel. So if they got bedbugs they might go after him. After all did he wash all his clothes at high heat, clean out his luggage, wipe it down with rubbing alcohol, high heat steam or other things known to be fatal to bed bugs? Probably not he just threw things in the suitcase and when on over would be my guess.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[PCM2]

You're discussing the criminality of saying something, when the issue here is strictly a civil one.

Errrr... could you please give me an example of when speech might be considered a criminal matter in the United States?

Re:How can you win over facts?

[bitt3n]

publicly presented with malicious intent to publicly discredit them

It seems like that could describe every terrible review of a business establishment, given that ill-treatment tends to make people vengeful (just as good treatment tends to make them grateful). Would it be preferable to allow people to claim they were treated badly only if they admit to being fully satisfied with this bad treatment?

Re:How can you win over facts?

[Anubis IV]

I never meant to imply that there was an example, but now that you mention it, I suppose that shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is generally cited as the prime example of when the right to free speech wouldn't apply. There are also examples such as fraud, which can land you in jail on criminal charges based on misleading statements you've made. I'm sure we could figure out some more examples.

But that's not the point. Even if we assume that it is always okay to say whatever you wanted as far as criminal law went, this is still a civil matter, not a criminal one, and that was what I was getting at. I was merely pointing out that a right to say what you want does not mean that you can say what you want without consequences.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[Jason Levine]

how can the hotel possibly win when the reviewer is stating facts?

Easy:

1) Sue the guest for $95,000
2) Guest realizes that fighting a lawsuit would be horribly expensive and time consuming.
3) Guest settles with hotel in a secret, but highly weighted towards the hotel deal.
4) Hotel wins!

Of course, that's what the hotel is HOPING will happen. Here's hoping the guest fights back, wins, and the judge orders the hotel to pay him $$$ for the guests' trouble and the stupidity of it all.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[jsepeta]

I was bitten by a tick at a long-stay hotel. Promptly removed the tick, checked out, had to fight them for a refund. NEVER AGAIN will I stay at Extended Stay America Hotel.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[lgw]

Everything outlawed by obscenity laws. Prior restraint is quite limited, but plenty can get you jail for distributing or performing. Lenny Bruce was famously jailed for this. Two Live Crew were arrested IIRC when they played a track from As Nasty As They Wanna Be as an instrumental - but our old friend Jack Thompson was tangled up in that mess, so I presume everything was eventually overturned.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[Xtifr]

But the civil issue is covered by anti-SLAPP laws. And apparently, Quebec is the only Canadian province with an anti-SLAPP law, so this hotel may be in big trouble now. (Twenty-eight states in the US have anti-SLAPP laws. If your state or province isn't one, it's time to nag your legislators.)

Re:How can you win over facts?

[Xtifr]

Lawsuits are expensive, even in Canada. I'm sure that the hotel does not expect to win, it expects to intimidate future bad reviewers.

Then they picked the wrong province to be located in, because Quebec is the only province with anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law on the books--a law designed expressly to punish any such attempts to use the legal system to intimidate.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[Anubis IV]

Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that they're getting sued in the first place. ;)

Re:How can you win over facts?

[theEnguneer]

As far as I know, you can only be found guilty of defamation if what you said was untrue. So if the guy said "the hotel had bedbugs everywhere" then he may indeed have to pay damages. As long as he just said something along the lines of "my room had bedbugs", which is true, then it is not defamation, no matter how damaging the statements were to the hotel's reputation and business.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[ceoyoyo]

Yeah, and if they find against you, you get guillotined. ;)

Re:How can you win over facts?

[gnasher719]

I don't advocate the hotel's position here for one minute, but I think they might have a case under willful defamation.... even though true, the facts were publicly presented with malicious intent to publicly discredit them, where they were presumably making every effort to resolve the situation once they became aware of it.

That's what happens if I make a claim that is factually true, with the intent that people will be misinterpreting it. For example, you may have been arrested for murder, but later proven innocent (because the real culprit was found). Telling people that you were arrested for murder, knowing fully that you are indeed innocent, would be willful defamation. This guy published his review so that people would get the _correct_ impression of the hotel. If the correct impression is bad, that's not his fault.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[bingoUV]

the facts were publicly presented with honourable intent to publicly discredit them

FTFY

Re:How can you win over facts?

[davecb]

He's in Quebec, SLAPP suits are actionable there.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[davecb]

Not in Canada.

In Canada, you have to be proven to be acting maliciously [Halsbury's], in order to sustain a judgment against you where you're making one or more true statements. In general, if you're telling the truth and nothing but the truth, you can't be convicted. If it's a SLAPP suit and you're in Quebec, you'll get "costs against" the person who sued you, meaning that they will have to pay your lawyer and court costs.

You're arguably thinking of the UK, where almost anything can be used to justify a suit. We're not as bad as they are, but not nearly as good as parts of the U.S. in this area.

--dave
IANAL and this is not legal advice, etc, etc.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[ILongForDarkness]

My understanding is the truth defense is more of a convention not a requirement. Also in Canada you have to use think it is called an affirmative defense. You are assumed to have defamed unless you can prove your speech was protected (in public interest, reasonable communication, etc). It would be for him to prove that his communication was for anything other than to harm that hotel as vengeance.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[davecb]

Whereas I see the onus as going the other way, once you have replied with a defence of truth. I fear we may be arguing about exceedingly fine points and need someone who IAL and knows both the common law (Canada) and Civil Code (Quebec) (:-))

Re:How can you win over facts?

[mark-t]

I agree, personally... but I can all too easily imagine that if the hotel has a good enough lawyer, it might not be seen that way by the court.

Re:How can you win over facts?

[Anubis IV]

None of that contradicts what I said. I never claimed they were going to lose the suit. I merely said that they were not protected from being sued in the first place.

Summary is wrong

[tompaulco]

The summary says he took the review down and then they sued him. The article says he did not take the review down. I will admit that I wasn't immediately able to find the review, but there are three others on tripadvisor about the Hotel Quebec having bedbugs. It is a chain, though so not sure if it is the same one.
Aren't bedbugs really tiny and hard to see? Isn't it more likely that these were not bedbugs the species, but some kind of other bugs on the bed?

Re:Summary is wrong

[oldhack]

They are about quarter inch long, dark, very visible and recognizable, especially against white hotel sheets.

Re:Summary is wrong

[arth1]

That's assuming, of course, that the hotel sheets are white.

Re:Summary is wrong

[Kleen13]

And will make you scratch and itch more than a hooker sweats in church.

Re:Summary is wrong

[Rinikusu]

They can be the size of a tick, if that gives you any reference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG9i0823QkY

Re:Summary is wrong

[oldhack]

Yes. I've got bitten by bed bugs twice in my life, once abroad and once in America, and both times it woke me up in the middle of night, leading me to catch the pest in the act.

Re:Summary is wrong

[rahvin112]

There is a seriously major bed bug infestation going on right now on the east coast of North America. There hasn't been this large of a problem with bed bugs in this area for more than 60+ years.

If the person is being bit it is most likely bed bugs. They are parasites that suck blood and because of this they are far worse than cockroaches, they also tend to breed as fast as roaches. The very presence in one room indicates they are present or will soon be present everywhere in the building. Standard treatment protocol for bed bugs is to spray not only the dwelling they are in but every adjacent dwelling area. In an apartment building this would mean the apartment in question plus all the surrounding apartments including above and below. Its not unusual to require treating the entire floor they are found on but the floor above and below as well.

Bed bugs are nasty business.

Re:Summary is wrong

[KGIII]

Cool - thanks. I, too, always thought they were tiny things that you would have difficulty seeing. (I have never suffered from an infestation nor have I ever stayed anywhere that had an infestation.) I do understand that being infested does NOT mean, for example, that you're dirty or the likes. I guess a comparison would be lice, just because someone gets head lice doesn't mean that they're dirty. It may mean that they're an idiot (shared a pillow or brush) or simply managed to catch them from leaning back in someone's comfy chair and someone else who had lice had sat there recently.

Then again, I thought they were itty bitty critters so they may very well mean you're a dirty person if you have them. I was already incorrect in what I "knew" so I guess I could be wrong about that too. I guess I'll just be glad/grateful that I've never had an infestation as I also understand that they're a pain to get rid of. But, as stated, I've already been wrong once so that too could be mistaken.

welcome to reality

[slashmydots]

If it was me the hotel was suing, I'd tell them to take up the complaint up with my department of go fuck yourself, of which Barbara Streissand is the department head.

Re:welcome to reality

[sabt-pestnu]

It's Quebec (french-inspired) legal system, so who knows.

But were it the US, you could end up being the butt end of a default judgement against you.

Sorry?

[Gemdog]

Couldn't they just say sorry, it usually works :-P

I will avoid this place like the bedbug plague

[generic_screenname]

I will never stay at a hotel that responds to a complaint on the internet with a $95k lawsuit.

Re:I will avoid this place like the bedbug plague

[Mitreya]

I will never stay at a hotel that responds to a complaint on the internet with a $95k lawsuit.

Ya, I agree, they lack imagination. He could just fight that. Should have sued him for $95M at least to really scare him

Also, I think the lesson here is that it is best to post reviews anonymously, as no good can come from identifying yourself.

Re:I will avoid this place like the bedbug plague

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I think the lesson here is that it is best to post reviews anonymously, as no good can come from identifying yourself.

No, it's best to post everything anonymously.

Re:I will avoid this place like the bedbug plague

[Green Salad]

"...post reviews anonymously, as no good can come from identifying yourself." FALSE but I understand your point. The protection of free speech isn't granted at the whim of people in power. It comes from credible individuals placing their personal ass on the line. It always has. It always will. Mitreya, cowering anonymously is NOT free speech...it's capitulation. It's a form of giving in and allowing yourself to be intimidated...and becoming part of the problem of eroding liberty.

A LOT of good comes from posting in an identifiable way. For starters, it instantly humanizes the message. Most people, me included, automatically discount a strong review posted anonymously. It could be a false review planted by the operation's manager/owner...or the competition. I've been to great places that had awful reviews...all posted anonymously. Reviews made under a real name shout "I'm willing to put my personal credibility behind this."

That this individual kept the review up, while under fire, gives him lots of instant credibility with me! I hope he gets crowd-sourced financial support for his upcoming battle. I sincerely hope he never heeds your advice.

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[scream at the sky]

There is no "First Amendment" in Canada. We have our own set of laws, and American laws don't apply.

This is the review and it is still up

[davebarnes]

"At first this hotel looks ok....until you wake up in the middle of the night at 3:00AM because you've been scratching all over and realize your bed is infested with BED BUGS!
What a nightmare! When I reported the situation to the managing stuff, there were no emergency to handle the situation because the decision maker was not available during the week end and it was a Saturday.
Instead they offered to transfer my son and I to a hotel nearby where a room was available because they were concerned I was going to cause Mayhem
They finally offered to investigate the room despite the 4 BED BUGS I had contained in a glass and pictures and videos I had showed them.
I was supposed to stay one more night but instead chose to move to a hotel nearby; turned out to be cleaner-up to date-bigger room- and cheaper rate and that was the Holiday Inn Express down the road at 3145 Avenue de Hotels.
Beware of BED BUGS! If you are looking for a scratch free night sleep, stay elsewhere, you will be doing you and your loved ones a favour! Trust me...and that's why the Internet is a great tool!
        Stayed April 2013, traveled with family"

And this is the link to the review...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if anybody wants to read it and/or vote it up on the site in question: http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g155033-d183336-r158988363-L_hotel_Quebec-Quebec_City_Quebec.html

Re:And this is the link to the review...

[KiloByte]

I don't know, his review looks a bit obsessed or trolling, the way he repeats "BED BUGS" and all that.

Like, say, he was upset because of getting ravaged by the little buggers in the middle of the night?

Re:And this is the link to the review...

[aXis100]

I was mauled by bed bugs once - every part of my body below my neck was covered in ictchy red bite marks - hundreds of them - and they didnt go away for weeks. It was both painful and embarasing, luckily I could get away with business attire and no-one could see them.

After that experience I'd be a bit upset / obsessed if was posting a review too.

Lawsuit = Billboard saying they have bedbugs

[JoeyRox]

I realize the negative publicity they received from his Trip Advisor review has hurt their business but by filing the lawsuit they're guaranteeing that every person who hasn't read the review will now become aware of their bed bug problem. And with the hotel not denying there were bedbugs the lawsuit is a horrible idea.

Clearly ....

[King_TJ]

You're not allowed to remove the bed bugs from the room, since they count as hotel property. If he would have just put them back after showing the front desk, maybe none of this would have happened?

But seriously, businesses are really getting fixated on maintaining good appearances via social media these days. They view the whole thing as a marketing/advertising playground for them, so honest review sites with negative reviews are a real thorn in the side for them. I don't think the hotel has any legal grounds for this lawsuit if the review is truthful .... but that doesn't mean it won't try intimidation tactics anyway.

It amazes me how companies pay people to watch Twitter feeds like a hawk these days. You can be a Twitter user who never tweets a single thing and basically has no followers. But if you have problems with a product or service and figure out the right name to tag on a tweet to get the company's attention? They're almost always right on top of replying and trying to do damage control. Never-mind the fact that same user might have posted something just as negative over on Facebook or elsewhere, and the company never so much as notices that comment.

Re:Clearly ....

[ILongForDarkness]

The beauty of civil suits is you don't have to have grounds. If you can keep it in the the court (or likely precourt) process long enough you can bankrupt the other guy into doing what you want. He who has the biggest wallet wins.

Also, this is Canada the truth is not an absolute defense for libel. If the purpose of your communication was malicious you can still lose.

Re:Clearly ....

[wvmarle]

Reviews are important, very important.

For a very long time, word of mouth is the most important means of advertising. It's the only thing Google relied on to get their services known; they never advertised themselves. They just relied on word of mouth. This site is another example of the power of word of mouth. It's how I got to know about both.

Now word of mouth is made even more powerful thanks to the Internet. When booking a hotel, or another service, people will read reviews. Same for buying books and many other things. Reviews are the new word of mouth - without them you're nothing.

A single negative review can really hurt your business, especially as on almost all those sites there is only room for a visitor to leave a review, but no room for the business owner to comment on the review, e.g. to provide explanation of certain events. Tripadvisor is one of those many sites where a review can not be commented on.

So it's not too surprising that a company is keen on finding negative reviews, and doing something about it. Bad experiences happen, and the company is not always at fault. It may be an honest misunderstanding, it may be force majeure, whatever. However thanks to the Internet those negative comments travel far and wide, and very fast.

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[Registered Coward v2]

There is no "First Amendment" in Canada. We have our own set of laws, and American laws don't apply.

Actually, since tripadvisor is located in the US it is a interesting legal arguement. Would Canada want US law to apply of a Canadian posted something that was actionable under US law simply because the website can be viewed in the US?

Yesterday vs. Today

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday: I figured there were hotels in Canada, but I never really thought about it.

Today: If I ever go to Canada, I'd better avoid the Hotel Quebec, because those bastards have bedbugs and sue people out of house and home rather than fix their problems. Either that, or the place attracts crazies with some pathology that causes them to make things up. Regardless, I'll just avoid it.

The guest will win

[jones_supa]

Well, the hotel guest will probably win the lawsuit, right? I don't see how writing a review about experiences in a hotel could be illegal.

Re:The guest will win

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were in the UK, the guest would have to prove that there are bed bugs. Othewise he is guilty of defamation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

Re:The guest will win

[jones_supa]

I see. According to his review he has "pictures and videos" of the bugs, I hope he kept them...

So where's the actual story?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, to the news site covering the lawsuit.

So far all we have is an anonymous comment on a review site and a few blogs linking to that comment. That's it. That's all the "proof" there is. Where is the link to a story with actual details on the lawsuit?

For all we know, the reviewer got kicked out for being a drunken buffoon and is retaliating by making up claims about a lawsuit.

Funny how everyone is so quick to jump on the bandwagon without any actual documentation.

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[Anonymous Coward]

The TOS specify that the laws of the State of Massachusetts apply and you consent to its jurisdiction. http://www.tripadvisor.ca/pages/terms.html

missing point

[Zurd3]

Article doesn't talk about the hotel's point of view, what if the customer brings bed bugs and just try to get a rebate. If the hotel had an expert that same day certifying that there's no bed bugs, they could win in court. Also, bed bugs happens in every hotel even 5 stars hey're a nuisance but they won't kill you.

New insecticide

[mirix]

They really need to come up with a new insecticide for bed bugs.

When I was a kid, bed bugs were some sort of myth, they just didn't exist anymore, like smallpox.
That just may have been because I grew up in BFE, though, with almost no immigration and little international travel. Now they are widespread through Canadian cities, not just flophouses either.

Current ways of killing them seem to be:
1. pyrethin? (plant based) insecticide, they are more or less immune
2. something else, but has to be applied by extermintor 3 times to kill, as it doesn't kill eggs. Cheapass slumlords never pay for three treatments, so this solves nothing, generally.
3. Heat. Heating the whole apartment block to 45 degrees (uhh.. 110? or 120F) for an hour or two kills them all dead, including eggs. expensive.
4. higher test stuff that is illegal to use indoors, maybe cause neurotoxicity or cancer or who knows what.

Doesn't seem like anyone does research on this, maybe they do and I just don't know about it. I'd certainly say this is going to get worse before it gets better, though.

Re:New insecticide

[suutar]

no, it's because DDT worked really well against bedbugs while it was legal. It's taken a while for the survivors to repopulate.

Re:New insecticide

[puppetman]

What about diatomaceous earth? It's fossilized algae, and a natural insecticide, absorbing the lipids from the exoskeletons of insects.

I've read that if you pull your bed from the wall, take 4 empty/clean tuna cans with diatomaceous earth in them, and put one under each leg of the bed, you can get rid of them. They crawl in and out of it on their way to feast on you.

If I had them, in addition to the cans-under-legs, I'd be dusting the floors, the sheets, the bed-frame, the bed-boards, the electrical sockets, etc, to get rid of them.

There was also a BBC show, either Edwardian Farm, or Victorian Farm, where they showed the housewife scrubbing bed frames down twice a year with lye to keep them under control.

Re:New insecticide

[tibit]

For all practical purposes there's no way, I repeat, no way to "heat the whole apartment block" to eradicate bed bugs. It's a myth perpetuated by the eradication industry. It's physically impossible unless you'd raise the building off the ground, isolate from all utilities, wrap air-tight with an insulating air gap between the plastic cover and the walls, and then heat up from inside. That's how I've seen someone get rid of a horrible infestation in a trailer home, and it's about the only way to pull it off. It did work, too - a year later, still no bed bugs. For normal buildings - forget it.

You see, bed bugs scamper away from heat, and when you're heating a building up, there are always gradients that let the suckers find the way to the basement, the attached car garage, whatever. Good luck heating the concrete basement or other adjoining walls to 45C, as that would be necessary to really kill them. Never mind that most heat treatments do not isolate the walls from outside air, so the walls never get hot enough.

The way heat-based bed bug eradication is normally done is you bring in a high-power space heater system that heats the air in the building. This is about the best scenario for bed bugs: due to slow heat exchange between hot air and the walls, the latter heat up slowly and let the bed bugs get out of the way before anything bad happens to them. That method doesn't kill any appreciable numbers of bed bugs, they simply go away for a while -- all the way to cracks and crevices in the foundation, if need be. It's then only a matter of time for the infestation to recover, as the suckers simply come back. Yes, their numbers will be reduced, but they'll come back all right.

There is a big problem with how the heat-based methods are evaluated: the test methods don't address the issue of bed bugs simply relocating elsewhere.

AFAIK, there are exactly zero pesticides that are approved for non-professional use the U.S. and that work against bed bugs. I repeat: ZERO. None. Nada. You're not buying anything unless you're licensed professional. The "higher test stuff" is not some nebulous thing either. There is exactly one category of insecticides that do work against bed bugs: organophosphates. Out of a whole lot of stuff, only one category. One that's highly regulated and universally toxic to pretty much anything with a nervous system, including humans. For all I know, if organophosphates came to be widely used against bed bugs, it'd be only a matter of time until those suckers found a way to cope with it, or even becoming totally immune. Perhaps whatever mutations would be responsible for it would also be of some use in humans - one can only hope.

Re:New insecticide

[mark-t]

For all practical purposes there's no way, I repeat, no way to "heat the whole apartment block" to eradicate bed bugs.

I suppose I should tell my friend that she's working for a fictitious company then... since that's exactly what they do.

The way heat-based bed bug eradication is normally done is you bring in a high-power space heater system that heats the air in the building.

Well y'see, that's where things differ. The company my friend works at doesn't just do that... they practically put the entire building they are going to work on into what looks a lot like a huge-ass enormous sleeping bag. The whole building is evacuated, and they then go through the entire building, basically insulating the entire building from the outside environment with insulation, and then they pump the heat in. I've actually seen buildings that have gotten this done while the bags were in place, and based on what I saw for myself, I'd guess the process is at least a full day of labour for a whole team, maybe even two.

I have no doubt that some heat escapes, but apparently not enough to keep them from maintaining the temperature for the necessary period. The company my friend works for guarantees their work, and she's told me that while she's worked there, nobody she knows of has complained that the treatment was ineffective.

Good luck heating the concrete basement or other adjoining walls to 45C, as that would be necessary to really kill them

That's apparently exactly what they do... but it is also apparently a VERY costly operation.

You see, bed bugs scamper away from heat

Yes... but the treatment this company does leaves the bugs with no place to scamper to. They are fully contained inside of the big insulated bag which is heated to the necessary temperatures and the temperature held there for quite a long time.

Re:New insecticide

[pongo000]

Bedbugs are known to drop down onto beds from the ceiling. They can also crawl (not jump) from furniture that happens to be touching the bed as well.

Re:New insecticide

[beckett]

the building i lived in recently had performed a treatment with diatomaceous earth when my neighbor had an outbreak. they used a bulb duster to poot DE into the power outlets, under the floor moulding, under the beds and the radiator, and across the gaps in the front door. I have a dust allergy, and did not even notice the treatment, which was done in about 10 minutes.

the small shards of the diatom's silica skeleton cut the bed bugs apart, but are harmless to people. Diatomaceous earth is the most effective, least hazardous way of mitigating bed bugs.

Re:New insecticide

[ceoyoyo]

I had the same experience as a child... bed bugs were kind of like fleas. Things in books. I've still never seen one.

Re:New insecticide

[mrchaotica]

DE did nothing to help, even when I had a solid line of the stuff

In that case, the issue is that it did not work because you had a solid line of the stuff. In this case, more is not better: if you use too much, the bugs notice and walk around it instead of through it.

Re:New insecticide

[tibit]

Good luck heating the concrete basement or other adjoining walls to 45C, as that would be necessary to really kill them

That's apparently exactly what they do... but it is also apparently a VERY costly operation.

It doesn't matter how much you wish to pay for it, it's simply infeasible with the building still in the ground. It may work by chance for buildings where the heating rate is high enough that the bed bugs won't reach the basement from a floor high up, but otherwise it's hopeless, especially in single-family residential scenarios. As soon as you have a finished basement with drywall covering the foundation walls, you're screwed - you won't ever heat the walls to anything nearly bad for bed bugs. No way. You have a big thermal resistance between the room air and the wall, and a small thermal resistance between the wall and the soil. The soil of course has some thermal resistance as well, so you could eventually heat it up enough, but it'd take weeks, and the inside of the building would need to be at 80C or so, about as high as you can go without melting stuff. Oh, and good luck exposing the inside of the entirety of concrete underground walls in any building that got offices and other finished spaces underground.

Re:New insecticide

[mark-t]

It doesn't matter how much you wish to pay for it, it's simply infeasible with the building still in the ground.

Like I said.... I'll be sure to tell my friend this weekend that she works for a fictitious company.

The system works. The amount of heat that escapes is negligible enough that it doesn't impact its effectiveness, and the bed bugs inside the building have nowhere to escape to because it's *completely* contained.

Re:New insecticide

[dywolf]

translation: "i dont care that you do it successfully. it cant be done successfully. your experience is wrong and i am right".

Re:New insecticide

[dj245]

They really need to come up with a new insecticide for bed bugs.

When I was a kid, bed bugs were some sort of myth, they just didn't exist anymore, like smallpox. That just may have been because I grew up in BFE, though, with almost no immigration and little international travel. Now they are widespread through Canadian cities, not just flophouses either.

Bedbugs are actually more likely to be found in higher-end hotels than flophouses. They get brought in by international travelers and then prove tough to get rid of. The one thing that should probably be done is to change all hotel room floors to tile or engineered "wood".

Re:New insecticide

[trifish]

Would you be so kind as to post a website or contact info of the company you mention? Many of us might need its services in the future and this one sounds like they really know what they're doing. Thank you.

Re:New insecticide

[mark-t]

I don't want to be accused of selling stuff on Slashdot. Google for bed bugs thermal remediation in BC, and you should find the company quite quickly..

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[jklovanc]

In Canada we have Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hotel is wrong but customer sounds like a dick

[multiben]

The hotel is clearly stupid and they will also lose this battle. But why did the customer refuse to move to another hotel? They chose to stay in a bed which they knew had bed bugs? And suggested that the hotel manager get down on her knees and beg him not to tell anyone? Sounds like a serial victim on a power trip to me. Can't wait for something bad to happen to them so they can become the outraged centre of attention.

Re:Hotel is wrong but customer sounds like a dick

[puppetman]

It was 3am - I guess they didn't want to pack up and move. Personally, I'm not sure how they got back to sleep.

Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[BLKMGK]

I stayed at a hotel in Vegas recently, one right on the strip. While taking a dump one evening I caught motion out the corner of my eye and a bug larger than my thumb was found to be racing at me! I had to lift my feet for the damn thing to run by before it became trapped in the corner behind the toilet. The lights were full on too, he was bold as brass.

I trapped the bastard in a glass and called down to the front desk a bit freaked out - it was after midnight. I explained there was a bug issue and they sent up some poor guy from maintenance, he arrived with a vacuum cleaner. Imagine his surprise when I showed him the bug! I told him I had no idea what it was and that I hoped it was some sort of weird mutant Vegas bug. His eyes big as saucers he told me "no sir, that's a cockaroach!". He stepped back out of the room and radioed his superiors - who told him they wanted him to bring the bug to them! (lol)

He covered it with a washcloth and off he went none too happy. Management promptly called offering to move me but I was tired and declined, I spent the night with the lights on clothed.

The next morning I went down to speak to a manager and was again offered a different room, I took one close by so I wouldn't have to schlep my stuff too far. Within the next three days I saw a "Do Not Disturb" sign back on that door. The room was out of service for maybe two nights and I was able to confirm this when I found it noted on my bill. Two days was all they spent cleaning up. Now this wasn't bed bugs which are hard as hell to kill but it was the largest roach I've ever seen and the damn thing had wings too! No way in hell did this sucker grow up and spend his life in that room and no way in hell did he get in through some sort of crack, I looked all over for possible entryways with a flashlight. This fucker HAD to have squeezed under the door from the adjoining room or from the hall - asshats leaving their room service out in the hall probably provided him a damn good sustenance.

At the end of the day this hotel, which I had thought pretty decent, seemed pretty nonplussed by this whole thing and not the slightest bit embarrassed. Room out of service a bare minimum and no effort I could see to do anything about adjoining rooms or the source of this issue. I have to say I'm not sure I'll be staying there again!

P.S. I used to travel with a blacklight. I found one or two memorable things with it and honestly I no longer carry it - some things I just don't want to know!

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[bmo]

"but it was the largest roach I've ever seen and the damn thing had wings too! "

I saw one like that once. It was also a typewriter.

--
BMO

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[chrismcb]

The lights were full on too, he was bold as brass....I spent the night with the lights on clothed.

The light didn't seem to bother it... so why leave it on?
It is just a "little" cockroach, not sure what the big problem is.

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[martinQblank]

I see what you did there. Nice movie reference (acronym: TNL).

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[VojakSvejk]

Hmmmm where are you from? In Houston we call that a little one (making some assumptions about the sizes of your thumb and your glass).

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[lgw]

That's just a normal cockroach in Texas. The big ones live outside, but they can enter though cracks you wouldn't believe. The big ones don't usually live long though - hard for them to find enough water. It's the little ones that are a problem, infestation-wise.

Re: Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[BLKMGK]

Have you seen the drinking glasses they keep in the bathroom of most places? That's what I caught him in and when he stood against the side of the glass he reached a good halfway up. Figure damn near 2inches long if I had to guess. Half inch wide maybe? I wish I'd put something in the picture for better scale lol

Re: Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[BLKMGK]

Nah, not Planet Hollywood. I've never stayed there. At the end of the day the room is home base not home but damn it would sure be nice to be able to sleep without worrying about something big with too many legs crawling into bed with you!

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[ceoyoyo]

Really? It was a roach. Bedbugs bite and are almost impossible to get rid of once you've got them. Roaches are kinda gross in large numbers.

I was putting on my shorts in Costa Rica one morning, shook them out as everyone should, and a scorpion longer than my middle finger dropped out onto the bed. I gathered up the sheet, tossed his ass out the door, and continued getting dressed.

Re: Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[mrchaotica]

It sounds like the one you encountered was an American cockroach, which is really, really common in the South. In fact, I didn't even know "little cockroaches" existed until recently -- the 2-inch-long ones are "normal" around here (in Atlanta).

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[realsilly]

Here is some information about these disgusting bugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_woods_cockroach

These types of bugs are very common in hot climate areas, Florida, Texas, Nevada, Alabama, etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_cockroach

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[BLKMGK]

The light didn't bother this one but most roaches do NOT like light - they are nocturnal. *I* need light to be able to see and believe me I wanted to see this thing coming if it had a brother. You might think this was little but I assure you it wasn't, it was big enough to choke on. Think Cicada sized or slightly larger.

Re: Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[BLKMGK]

I'm primarily familiar with German Cockroaches. They aren't really big but they breed like mad and seldom get even a quarter of this ones size! I can confirm that this sucker was pretty quick for it's ungainly size...

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[BLKMGK]

Yeah, this sucker really just wanted to get away although running at me seemed stupid in the bright light. I figured he was running AWAY from something nastier :-)

Worst I've heard of are the centipedes from Japan that will actually chase you!

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[metrix007]

You overreacted. A single roach? Really?

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[BLKMGK]

You ever know a roach that lived alone? That grew THAT big? Sure, I'm sure he was the only one around. I have a bridge to sell you as well...

Re:Hotels don't handle this stuff very well IMO

[metrix007]

Did you see other roaches? Just because you see one roach doesn't mean there is an infestation. It could have been on someones luggage or towel or anything.

Really, you overreacted.

Sleeping in clothes with the light on...lol.

Bye bye Jaro chain

[EmperorOfCanada]

Hello Jaro chain, do you know what I prize even more than a bedbug free hotel? My right to free speech. I wouldn't be mad if this suit was about some guy faking the bedbugs but now you have escalated it to an attack on a fundamental human right. So any time I am forced to stay in Quebec city I will make sure to avoid any of your 6 anti-free-speech zones.

Re:News for Nerds -- stuff that ....really?

[BLKMGK]

Man writes review on internet review site - something many of us do. Man writes truthful review. Man is sued for a great deal of cash as a result. Something that coudl happen to one of us. It matters.

Oh yeah, some of us have to travel while earning our living too :-O

Interesting Anecdote

[wbr1]

My girlfriend and I take weekend trips often during the summer, and we use hotels.com to book lodging. While in Ohio earlier this summer, one of the places we stayed was terrible. No bedbugs, but poor repair, smelly room, bad service, the list goes on and on. IN addition, thier entry on hotels.com stated that they offered contentinal breakfast, which they did not.

Upon returning from our trip, we decided to rate and write a hotels.com review to warn others. We were not disrespectful or profane. We stated the facts and our displeasure with them only. A week or so later, my GF noticed the review still had not posted. Then she received an email stating that it would not because it violated the TOS of hotels.com. No explanation of how, just that we had. There were no names given (except the name of the hotel), and as I stated earlier, nothing but facts about ther visit, and our displeasure (admittedly and opinion).

I know where hotels.com gets its bread buttered now, and it is not from us customers. A chain hotel can exert much more fiscal pressure than a single customer.

I am owed a free night from them, and I am thinking of booking hotels using another source after that, but will the result be any different? My cynical brain says no.

Re:Interesting Anecdote

[Anonymous Coward]

Yelp. Tripadvisor. Bookings.com. I'm not so sure Bookings.com isn't in the same pot as hotels.com, but Yelp at least knows they live and die by the customer satisfaction first. They don't have a good global presence so Tripadvisor is better outside of the US, but inside the US Yelp is #1 for reviews. And since they're not a booking agent, they have nothing to gain by supporting the business and lots to lose if they don't maintain their impartial reputation with the customers.

Re:Interesting Anecdote

[Anonymous Coward]

Yelp gets businesses to pay for favored reviews to show up (well, they don't say it like that, they say it like "positive algorithm applied on a paying business' reviews" ..

So I'm not sure you are totally right on the whole Yelp-wanting-to-be-totally-impartial-for-its-customers bit. I find Yelp's review system to be pretty sleazy actually, after seeing my own truthful (but negative, admittedly) review disappear into the back pages for a paying business.

Re:Interesting Anecdote

[mjwx]

I know where hotels.com gets its bread buttered now, and it is not from us customers. A chain hotel can exert much more fiscal pressure than a single customer.

Are you paying hotels.com for reading these reviews?

If not you aren't their customer.

Trip Advisor et al are the same, their money comes from their advertisers not from the people writing or reading the reviews, you're the product. The customers can pay to have unflattering things removed.

Re:Interesting Anecdote

[wbr1]

Since I pay hotels.com tp book a hotel for me and they take a cut before passing it on to the hotal, yes I AM their customer. Just not one that can exert much pressure. A chain of thousands of hotels bluffing and saying they will pull their listings, removing MBA's know how much revenue has much more power.

Other posts?

[jklovanc]

If you look at the review site you will find a total of 28 reviews that grade the hotel as poor or terrible.Why only sue one reviewer?

Re:Other posts?

[arashi no garou]

Because bedbugs are the ultimate venereal disease of hotel chains. They are very difficult to get rid of, and even if the hotel manages to wipe them out, once word gets out no one will touch them. Basically, the hotel chain feels the guy cost them real money. Though in truth, the hotel cost themselves the money by having the infestation in the first place; this guy just happened to be the patron who spoke out about it.

Re:Other posts?

[hey!]

Well, it's a bit harsh to say they brought this on themselves by having the infestation, because it's basically impossible to prevent an occasional infestation. Bedbugs don't spontaneously generate in filth, like people used to think rats did. They are brought in by guests, and even a clean, vigilant hotel is going to have them from time to time.

It seems to me like the hotel did the right things, up to the point where they went ape-shit over the trip advisor review. Yeah, the review was probably not fair, and it's going to hurt business in the short term, but them's the breaks. Into every business a little misfortune must fall. You suck it up and move on, you don't turn it into an ongoing PR disaster.

Bedbugs are disgusting, but they're harmless. They carry no diseases. Yeah, it's no fun finding them and they're a pain to get rid of, but they're not the Mark of Cain on a particular hotel. They're just something unfortunate that happens. Finding them is not proof that a hotel is dirty or lax, but people *will* over-react to bugs of all kinds.

Re:Other posts?

[Cedric Tsui]

The hotel can sue this individual for slander. The only way you have a case for slander is is you can prove that the accusations are unfounded. That's not easy. The only reason they would be suing is because they think they can win. Well... either that or they're stupid.

Two words...

[pslytely psycho]

Counter suit.

Re:NEWS FOR NERDS ??

[AK Marc]

Getting sued for posting a bad review ON THE INTERNET has the "Internet" word in it, thus news for nerds.

SLAPP

[jklovanc]

Quebec has an anti-SLAPP law.

Re:SLAPP

[flimflammer]

Maybe if he wasn't such a douche.

Re:I Call Bullshit!

[jklovanc]

It is a french hotel; the french never apologize.

Very Helpful review too!

[Guru80]

The review in the link above currently has 278 up votes while the 4 star rating directly below it has 2. /. keep doing what you do!

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[bmk67]

That would be relevant if TripAdvisor were a party to the suit, but they don't appear to be. The TOS wouldn't even apply here.

Hotel Reaction

[GoCal92]

I find it rather strange that they would have only offered to send him to another hotel. If he truly did have a bed bug infestation, then likely his clothing, personal belongings, and even luggage were infested as well. Sending him to another hotel could have spread the infestation. My understanding is that many hotels, when confronted with this issue, offer to dry clean all of the guest's clothing, buy them new luggage, and then move them to another room/hotel. Worst case for the guest is that they bring the infestation home with them. Bed bugs can be very difficult to eradicate.

Should never have taken the review down...

[Red_Chaos1]

...and he needs to counter sue, because they're idiots. End of story.

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[sjames]

I'm pretty sure stamping ducks is illegal.

He did not take it down!

[fuzzytv]

... and when he refused to take it down, the chain of hotels sued him for $95,000. [quoted from the very first sentence of http://blog.sweetiq.com/2013/08/hotel-sues-guest-for-95k-over-bad-review/%5D

So the review is still there http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g155033-i134-k6703172-Bed_bugs_lawsuit_by_hotel_as_a_result_of_bad_review-Quebec_City_Quebec.html

Anyway, good job Hotel Quebec! Streisand effect at it's best ...

Re:He did not take it down!

[fuzzytv]

Meh, should have read the tripadvisor page more carefully - it's not the original review. Nevertheless, the article states it was not removed.

Re:He did not take it down!

[WinstonWoof]

That is not the original review, this is : http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g155033-d183336-r158988363-L_hotel_Quebec-Quebec_City_Quebec.html

Re:Managing reputation 101

[mark-t]

To be fair... bedbugs can sometimes get into a hotel because of circumstances beyond the hotel's control, for example, only a very tiny handful may be on a guest's clothing or maybe in their luggage.. and a hotel can often only react to being made aware of their presence. By the time they know about them, it's extremely rare that they know the full extent of just how far they've spread.

#iamspartacus

[recrudescence]

time for another #iamspartacus campaign?
leave a review saying "1 star: person who reviewed negatively got tracked and dragged to court; would not go to a hotel that has no respect for its customers", for example?

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[aristotle-dude]

There section 2 of the Bill of Rights and Freedoms built right into the constitution of Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Two_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms however since the hotel is in Quebec and they have not ratified that constitution, my advice would be to avoid the province of Quebec entirely.

Re:NEWS FOR NERDS ??

[aristotle-dude]

Besides, that's Canadian dollars. It be what, a few thousand American. Free publicity for the guy. Well worth a couple of grand. If this drivel makes it up on Slashdot imagine the other e-rags picking this who-cares up.

Jury

Funny troll. 90,278.41 USD.

Re:Next time I post a bad review

[Green Salad]

Wanna know your machines mac address?

His original complaint - in English

[sabri]

Bilingual or not, he posted in English:

Quote:

âoeBed bugs in our bedâ 1 5 étoiles Avis écrit le 27 avril 2013 Google Traduction At first this hotel looks ok....until you wake up in the middle of the night at 3:00AM because you've been scratching all over and realize your bed is infested with BED BUGS!

What a nightmare! When I reported the situation to the managing stuff, there were no emergency to handle the situation because the decision maker was not available during the week end and it was a Saturday.
Instead they offered to transfer my son and I to a hotel nearby where a room was available because they were concerned I was going to cause Mayhem
They finally offered to investigate the room despite the 4 BED BUGS I had contained in a glass and pictures and videos I had showed them.
I was supposed to stay one more night but instead chose to move to a hotel nearby; turned out to be cleaner-up to date-bigger room- and cheaper rate and that was the Holiday Inn Express down the road at 3145 Avenue de Hotels.
Beware of BED BUGS! If you are looking for a scratch free night sleep, stay elsewhere, you will be doing you and your loved ones a favour! Trust me...and that's why the Internet is a great tool!

Séjour du Avril 2013 - voyage en famille

Re:His original complaint - in English

[rwise2112]

Sounds like an accurate review. I don't know about Frenchie-land, but here truth is a solid defense against libel.

I wonder if it's because he specifically mentioned another competitor.

GROUPON takes a hugh hit as well

[Trax3001BBS]

Surfed from the story to “Streisand Effect” at wikipedia.org ending somehow at this story which is very much on topic
in fact mentioned three times to this articles single at the bottom
http://blog.sweetiq.com/2013/08/groupon-rep-threatens-sf-restaurant-posts-bad-reviews/

"UNBELIEVABLE CUSTOMER SERVICE EMAIL FROM GROUPON - Threatening me with Bad yelps for not letting him bully me into a sales pitch!!!!! Talk about Abusive business practices (my response is below)" http://archive.is/lIFF5 (archive of facebook posting of orginial posting by Sauce)

If you'd like to watch Andrew Johnston show a lack of understanding how threating someone in print is a bad thing, demonstrate how sales is not handled, lose this job and put Sauce on the map do give it a read.

Hotel and customer are wrong...

[w1zz4]

The Hotel have bedbugs problems, they confirmed it. But the customer acted like a total jerk. He refuses to move to a next door Hotel with a 40$ refund. The next day, he also refuses to move to another room. He finally decided to just check out and ask for a full a refund. He also threaten the employees and manager. Finally, this is a cheap hotel, not a 5 stars at all. You can compare this hotel to a Super 8 in US, so the service is bit on the crappy side...

Re:welcome to reality-TFTFY

[Ralph Spoilsport]

To the owners of Hotel Quebec,
I told the truth. If you do not like that, please take it up with my go fuck yourself department. Please address all correspondence to the director, Barbra Streisand.

Pour les propriétaires de l'Hôtel Québec,
J'ai dit la vérité. Si vous n'aimez pas cela, s'il vous plaît prendre avec mon Va te faire foutre département. S'il vous plaît d'adresser toute correspondance au directeur, Barbra Streisand.

(god bless google translate....)

New review

[Arancaytar]

"I am prohibited by a court injunction to say what my experience in this hotel was like."

No way that could ever be taken as bad advertisement.

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[gagol]

If the US continue down the road of massive defficit, we may well buy a couple states soon!

Common misconception

[danaris]

This differs from the American version which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no guarantee of such in any American document that has force of law.

That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, which, while it has value in guiding our legislators, jurists, and other leaders in making and interpreting law, has direct value only for its historical significance.

Dan Aris

But was it really true?

[almechist]

I am not 100% convinced that this guy is on the level. First of all, you don't feel bedbug bites when they bite you, you feel them hours or even days later. Because of this, it's common for people with bedbug infestations to never actually see a living bedbug. It seems very suspicious to me that this guy not only claims to have felt the bite immediately, but then was able to actually capture several bedbugs. It doesn't smell quite right to me. Not saying it's not on the level, but I'm definitely skeptical. It's so easy these days to mess with a small business simply by posting a few choice negative reviews online, a situation which can lead to all kinds of opportunities for minor extortion attempts by amateurs. And don't think that because the hotel admitted the presence of bedbugs that this automatically means there really was a preexisting infestation, the guy could have released any number of bugs into the room. Not saying that's what happened, just that you have to keep an open mind about these things, and his story doesn't quite ring true.

Re:But was it really true?

[lgw]

Sounds true to me. An apex infestation of bedbugs has 100s of thousands of em. Easy enough to see once they're active.

Bedbugs hitchhike in luggage, but only a few. If the bedbugs dropped off in the hotel room, it would be days before a guest noticed.

You're reaching to quite an extreme to try not to blame the hotel that had bedbugs. Why?

Re:But was it really true?

[metrix007]

not all people react the same way to bedbugs....

Re:But was it really true?

[almechist]

Sounds true to me. An apex infestation of bedbugs has 100s of thousands of em. Easy enough to see once they're active.

Bedbugs hitchhike in luggage, but only a few. If the bedbugs dropped off in the hotel room, it would be days before a guest noticed.

You're reaching to quite an extreme to try not to blame the hotel that had bedbugs. Why?

Sorry for the late reply, but if anyone is still interested... You are quite correct about the blatant obviousness of an apex infestation, but I discounted that possibility for several reasons. Such a large infestation would almost certainly have spread to neighboring rooms, if not the entire building, but the hotel maintains that bugs were only found in the one room. Also, big infestations like you describe take a long time to get to that point, it would have meant that guests in the room were being bitten for months, but not a single guest noticed or complained. Remember, a bedbug colony can only grow if there are humans present for the bugs to feed on. It's possible, I suppose, but in this case I just didn't think a huge infestation was very likely given the circumstances. But a small infestation would mean the bugs would be much harder to locate and trap, thus my suspicion when I read that he easily captured several bedbugs.

As for him feeling the bites, it's true different people react differently, but usually this just means variations in the strength of the delayed reaction. It's very rare for someone to actually feel the bite as it happens. Bedbugs have evolved very effective mechanisms for keeping their presence unnoticed by the host during feedings. They wait until the host is asleep, their saliva contains a powerful anesthetic, and they are so small and lightweight even a fully awake human cannot feel a bedbug crawling on his or her skin. So yes, a guy claiming to have felt the bite did make me wonder if he's telling the whole truth. But I was not trying to stand up for the hotel in any way! It's totally plausible that there were indeed bedbugs in the room and that this guy got bit. I was merely suggesting that his story be given extra scrutiny because there were a couple of elements to it that I found suspicious.

Re:But was it really true?

[lgw]

I had a coworker who immediately noticed the bedbugs in his hotel room on the first night. You don't need to feel the bites if you happen to be awake when they become active. Many people don't sleep through the night.

The article

[chrismcb]

I don't quite understand the questions in the article:

On the one hand, what right do customers have to post reviews that negatively affect the business of the establishment?

Well if they had a negative experience, they have EVERY right. You know "word of mouth" works both ways. Customers can vote with their wallet, but they can also vote with their mouth.

When your business is threatened, shouldn’t you be able to protect yourself?

Sure. You do that by addressing the complaints, and solving the problems and providing better service. Not by silencing your critics.

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[ILongForDarkness]

You can be sued under canadian libel law regardless of where the publication was. You could write a nasty letter that only a few scientists living in Antarctica ever see and I could still sue you in Montreal for it.

Officially bilingual but not by choice

[scott.todd]

Manitoba is considered bilingual (or should I say 'bilingue'?) because the Supreme Court of Canada decided that they are because of how the Manitoba Act (part of the consitution) was written. The Manitoban gov't tried to officially make itself uni-lingual but the Court struck it down. An agreement was made to compromise whereby the provincial gov't agreed to provide gov't services in both languages. Also they have French/French Immersion public schools available to those who want it. I prefer to say that NB is the only 'voluntary' official bilingual province in Canada. That way, no matter how the hairs are split, I'm still technically correct.

Re:The guy is the perp; the company the victim

[lgw]

they didn't clean the room sufficiently and as such there were bed bugs

Wrong. You cannot eliminate bedbugs through any sort of cleaning. You cannot get bedbugs though lack of cleaning (they eat only blood).

But the guy was a dick about it. What did he want?

He had bedbugs, and wrote a review that said he had begbugs. Sounds fair to me.

Tripadvisor

[txherper]

Tripadvisor would be utterly devoid of merit if only positive reviews were published. I don't know about Canada, but libel in the United States requires misrepresentation of the facts.

Re:Tripadvisor

[eyenot]

By taking it down that was basically admitting that there was something in the posting that was not right to print. His mistake.

Streisand * 2

[betterprimate]

The hotel has just made the client more able to counter suit. The hotel broke the TOA and inflicted physical, emotional, and financial harm to *their* client. Client should counter with $500,000.

This is like taking your car to the shop and having it come back with a sledgehammer through a windshield.

Free speech, bitch.

[betterprimate]

The hotel owners are the real bed bugs and cockroaches. They're taking up precious real estate; they will be driven into the ground. You just made everyone you couldn't file lawsuit against vindictive and will smash you like a fucking bug.

Re:welcome to reality-TFTFY

[ceoyoyo]

I'm sorry, you've written the English first, and not in a smaller font size than the French. The language police would like to talk to you now.

I know those sentences sound completely ridiculous, but everything in them is real, in La Belle Provence.

language.

[leuk_he]

Since The review was in English, I suppose the bedbugs also spoke English. In the french rooms there was no problem at all.

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[Registered Coward v2]

You can be sued under canadian libel law regardless of where the publication was. You could write a nasty letter that only a few scientists living in Antarctica ever see and I could still sue you in Montreal for it.

However, if the person is in the US the 2010 Speech Act bars them from collecting and allows a declaratory judgement clearing them of libel if the suit violates our 1st amendment. More to the point, it is interesting how laws collide in an environment where what is protected in one country is actionable in another. For the lawyers here: Would it be possible to file a SLAPP suit if the person lives in a state that offers such protections even if the original suit is filed in a non-US court?

Bed bugs don't eat dirt

[Comboman]

If you believe that a bed bug infestation should somehow be acceptable by paying customers and is somehow a industry standard then you've spent too much time working on a dirty hotel and not enough time visiting hotels which aren't squalors.

That is a common misconception. Other insects like cockroaches, are more common in dirty environments because they are attracted to bits of food and other waste that are a food source to them. Bed bugs on the other hand are attracted to human beings, because that is their food source. Whether a room is clean or dirty doesn't matter to the bed bugs, and normal cleaning methods (vacuuming, etc) doesn't get of them.

Original review

[WinstonWoof]

Here for reference : http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g155033-d183336-r158988363-L_hotel_Quebec-Quebec_City_Quebec.html

not the whole story

[PortWineBoy]

Evidently this man videotaped his encounter with the hotel staff and then tried to extort the hotel for $500 for the copy of the video. He then stood outside the hotel driving customers away. While he may have been within his rights to do these things (is this type of extortion legal in Quebec?) I do find it odd that these facts aren't being reported anywhere.

DDT kills bed bugs

[McFly777]

As I understand it DDT was used in matresses specifically to kill/prevent bed-bugs, and was very effective. This is part of the reason that the US/Canada has had many decades of being reletively bed-bug worry-free (or at least it has been uncommon). The problem with DDT was that it was found to persist into the environment, would get into the fish, which were then eaten by birds, which resulted in soft egg-shells and the decline of species such as the California condor and bald eagle. This is why it was banned in 1972.

It has taken 30-40 years, the eagle population has returned, but so have the bed bugs.

How dare he

[CimmerianX]

How dare he tell the truth about our bedbugs.... Sue him!

Nice "helpful" count

[Tchaik]

I find it revealing that the "was this review helpful" counter is near 700, when the other reviews have a count below 10... I, for one, clicked on it, in a futile attempt to teach that hotel about the Streisand effect and how not to treat customers. The hotel didn't even bother to reply to the review...

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[ILongForDarkness]

It probably only protects them while they are in the US. If they go to Canada or a country that chooses to respect Canada's judgement/law over the US judgement/law they might still collect. Lots of civil law is like that. As long as you don't go to where what you did was illegal (or have assets there) your fine. Doesn't mean you weren't found guilty just that the victim can't collect.

Bed bugs are resistant to DDT now

[PeterM from Berkeley]

I'd support limted use of DDT for bedbug control, however, using DDT is probably futile.

Like all pesticides, the bugs they're used against become resistant to them.

Google it yourself or check out:

http://www.panna.org/blog/DDT-for-bedbugs

Best,

--PM

From orbit

[shiftless]

I don't think there is such a thing. If he had burned the hotel to the ground and detonated a small nuclear device in the rubble, I'd admire his restraint.

I say we blast off and nuke em from orbit.

Re:NEWS FOR NERDS ??

[rsborg]

Getting sued for posting a bad review ON THE INTERNET has the "Internet" word in it, thus news for nerds.

In this case, ON THE INTERNET has big implications on the legality of the suit, and the netiquette of the guest.

Not to mention, I learned about Diatomaceous earth [1] from this posting (upthread).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomaceous_earth

perfect example of how to use technology

[hesaigo999ca]

Yes, you can NOW be burned for trying to skim, dust under the rug, threaten, or even deny accusations that your business, product, or services, is under par.

Thank god we finally have the internet, although businesses still are lagging in accepting this is here to stay, and you should do your best to take care of the client.

If you are a hotel, and have bed bugs, this is a crime... if you are a mehcanic shop and have bed bugs, who the f*ck cares!

Lets keep it real, a hotel with bed bugs is like a mechanic shop with no wrenches! You will not get the job done properly.

Don't cry if you are caught with your pants down.... and I am sure this is the only guy that thought to complain online, but I can bet this is not the only guy to get bitten by bed bugs in that hotel.

Now as a hotel, will you look at this and see the importance of hygiene? I hope so...

I stayed in a hotel in Sault StMarie, where they had replaced the covers as they were before the previous person was there, i opened up the covers and found pieces of cheese, pubic hairs, and some stains on the sheets, all the while having a bed with a middle that sagged 5 inches deep! This was in 1995, and you can bet if I came across this now, I would and WILL do the same as this guy did.

Hotels need to be held accountable, just like any other business taking your money for a service provided.

Re:Sue the man, or the website owners?

[Registered Coward v2]

It probably only protects them while they are in the US. If they go to Canada or a country that chooses to respect Canada's judgement/law over the US judgement/law they might still collect. Lots of civil law is like that. As long as you don't go to where what you did was illegal (or have assets there) your fine. Doesn't mean you weren't found guilty just that the victim can't collect.

True. It also means they can't enforce a judgement that they may normally do so, across national boundaries, because of treaties. Interesting issues, howvever given the ease at which information flows across borders.