Slashdot Mirror
French Blogger Fined For Negative Restaurant Review
An anonymous reader sends an article about another case in which a business who received a negative review online decided to retaliate with legal complaints. In August of last year, a French food blogger posted a review of an Italian restaurant called Il Giardino. The restaurant owners responded with legal threats based on the claim that they lost business from search results which included the review. The blogger deleted the post, but that wasn't enough. She was brought to court, and a fine of €1,500 ($2,040) was imposed. She also had to pay court costs, which added another €1,000 ($1,360). The blogger said, "Recently several writers in France were sentenced in similar proceedings for defamation, invasion of privacy, and so on. ... I don't see the point of criticism if it's only positive. It's clear that online, people are suspicious of places that only get positive reviews."
Here's some TripAdvisor's reviews on that particular restaurant.
Reading few analysis about the judgement : the court did not make the condemnation for the article but only for the title ("A place to avoid in Cap-Ferret : Il Giardino"). The court did not order a single modification to the article content, only of its title (plus the fine). The author of the post also decided to not be defended by a lawyer during the court audition (which would have probably changed the outcome of the judgement according to other specialized lawyers). Also, this decision could have been broken in a second court if the author made the decision. Instead she voluntarily removed the article from her blog. Finally, this decision can not be referred to for future cases in France (do to the nature of the case).
So yes, of course, seemingly against free-speech decision but not really as dramatic as many of you try to depict it.
One of my mum's colleagues was applying for a job in a different part of the civil service, so she was asked to provide a reference. My mum didn't want to be responsible for this person getting a job where they could possibly do some real damage, but at the same time couldn't give a negative reference. So she ended up giving the following:
Works well under direct supervision
Compare this to the UK Ordnance Survey where I temped for a year - there were permanent member of staff with 20 years of production experience who still couldn't read a map. One guy was proud of the fact that he came "highly recommended" when he got passed from department to department. Not only was he completely useless, but incredibly sleazy - no wonder they wanted shot of him.
Nope, anything you say that prevents them from being hired can be held against you, even if true. Eligible for rehire (or not) is one of the few facts specifically protected.
Learn to love Alaska
Il Giardino, 71 Bd Beach, Cap-Ferret meet Streisand
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Slander/defamation in the USA require that the statement be a statement of fact, and that the statement be FALSE.
An opinion cannot be slander/defamation.
A TRUE statement cannot be slander.defamation.
i.e. "I did not like the chateau briand" is a statement of opinion, and therefore not slander/defamation.
"the coffee was served cold" could be slander/defamation is the coffee was, in fact, served hot. If, on the other hand, the coffee arrived at your table cold, it would not be slander/defamation.
"the waitress was a stone-cold bitch" is a statement of opinion, hence not defamation.
"the waitress spat in my soup" is slander/defamation if the waitress did NOT spit in your soup, otherwise not.
I am aware that in many countries that "false" part of "false statement of fact" is not part of the definition of slander/defamation", so saying bad things about someone, even if literally true, can be slander/defamation, but that's not the way it works on this side of the pond.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
In the original article an ArretSurImages.fr, the blogger details in her interview that she decided not to hire a lawyer, instead simply complied immediately and did not defend her position. She was not required by the court to remove her post, but she did so of her own accord.
A commenting lawyer interviewed for the article indicated that the case shows more the necessity of getting legal advice, rather than any evolution of rights on the Internet.
Yes it's sad that she was attacked for her criticisms, but it's sadder that she did not take responsibility, or stand her ground.
-- "Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability." --Dijkstra