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."
When are these businesses going to learn that when you lawyer up against negative reviews, it suddenly becomes *newsworthy* and only makes the situation that much worse. Maybe if they spent their legal fees on training for their waitstaff, they wouldn't get those negative reviews to start with. Crazy thought, I know.
The more seriously slander and libel are punished, the more damage a single act of slander or libel can do. Things are so bad these days that most people are inclined to believe practically everything they read/hear and even fair criticism is subject to legal action.
Wouldn't it be nice to have some form of "free speech" which, if guarded carefully, would require people to actually think for themselves and always consider the reputation of a source alongside its content.
But my mom said "if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all". And it seems the courts agree with her.
So I want to stress that the road in front of their entrance is really tidy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Or I will sue you! If it's not suing, companies find ways such as sending discount coupons and freebies (bribes) to online reviewers. On Amazon, eBay and AliExpress, I've had sellers contact me to remove my 2/5 review of their product, offering me upto full refund. Since I am not that kind of person, I did not accept. Maybe they will try blackmail next (which I hope is illegal, even in China).
This case also makes you wonder what will happen to negative reviews posted on Amazon? Should these be removed too, especially those tagged with votes like 100 out of 110 users found this useful?
The Law should be on the side of impartial reviews but somehow this is not the case in France.
I am so fucking glad that I am an American! There is a fuckload to bitch about in my country, but damn it's good to be a U.S. Citizen.
Who makes the laws in France? I find this ruling so incredibly stupid that I might indefinitely postpone my already delayed-by-a-decade trip to Paris.
I don't know about your country, in mine a boss is not allowed to say anything bad about you in a job reference. He can't say you're a drunkard. So he'll write "he was working hard to keep the spirits up". Too stupid to get anything accomplished? "He was very good at trying to get his assignments done". Didn't do ANYTHING? "He was known to be very punctual."
Euphemism and "secret" code has developed due to a culture that disallows bad reviews. I guess the same will happen here sooner or later. We'll just have to be able to understand idioms like "The service was one of a kind" (read: no other restaurant that is still in business has that kind of crappy service). "The food was something we remembered for a long time" (read: We spent a long time on the can with diarrhea). Or how about "Every time we discover something new" (read: No matter what you order, you'll certainly get whatever they have to get rid of quickly).
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The real problem is that while most judges are from older generations, they must adjudicate on modern societal issues they don't really understand.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Does France have anything analogous to the Fair Comment defense found in Commonwealth countries? I see it apparently still occasionally works in Canada and the UK.
We once received an application that included a reference letter with only one substantive comment: "She always keeps her desk neat and tidy". But really, that's not a secret code or anything, it is entirely clear: do not expect this person to do any work. The fact that the person actually included this letter of reference with her application made it doubly damning, because she apparently did not understand what it said.
On the subject of TFA: I do hope some French /.ers will chime in with the local interpretation of this ruling...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Here's some TripAdvisor's reviews on that particular restaurant.
Mod me up! (Or I might sue yer ass.)
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
How about leaving a review which essentially only states: "I cannot complain about the service nor the food."
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
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.
No effort... and remarkably eloquent; perhaps with a link to the court case...
The European Convention of Human Rights is more than newspeak...
France (and Europe in general ?) has strictly no culture of natural Rights.
And you came to that conclusion...how exactly?
Ezekiel 23:20
"And Europe in general" murrican detected
Nous condamnons par faible éloge.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
More like no Freedom of Defamation. Doesn't the US have laws against slander too?
I am not allowed to complain about the service nor the food.
That would be more clearer.
Mod parent up. Still I think the judge an idiot for ruling like he did. The reason for not having a lawyer and just paying whatever fine would apparently be the blogger was scared of any extra costs the lawyer would have brought in face of the non-certainty of winning (which still might have been more expensive than what she paid now if the procedure was lengthier but in the end still not in her favour). The restaurant owner was trolling, there's just no better word for it. By awarding even this tiny win the judge is inviting his whole judicial system to similar crap (and threats to ordinary citizens). On the other hand, wasn't there a public lawyer she might have used?
No culture of natural rights?
Faurisson affair, a denier of the Holocaust (and apparently having ties to neo-Nazi groups). What was denounced was the fact that freedom of expression does not give you a freedom to falsehood and lies.
A bon entendeur...
It's easy to make up a story about going to some restaurant, and maybe you even actually went there, and if you did, who knows if you had a great service or not, maybe you were off your meds, and then for the hell of it, you write a scathing review. Or a great one as a prank for your friends.
On the internet, anybody can be a blogger and there's no quality control, just look at the kind of comments we get on Slashdot at -1. So while blogging is great and all, and saying whatever you like as a blogger is also great, if you're a blogger you should still put your neck on the chopping block like any normal journalist.
If you're going to say something, you'd better have definite proof, not just some random opinion. And if you get sued once in a while, accept it. It happens to professional journalists a lot. The trick is to back up your blogging claims with proper facts that you can actually show to a judge if asked.
The "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" has been written 200 years ago. There is nothing left of its spirit in today's French's culture. Ideas and "lies" must be fought on the philosophical level, not on the legal one.
How stupid does ANYONE have to be to believe a positive (or, for that matter, negative) review online?
There's an ad on TV for a referral site for various services that claims that only "members" can post reviews. How many of the "members" are paid shills?
Btw, let me quote Voltaire's famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.". A bon entendeur...
The very purpose of a critic is to allow both negative and positive review. There is no point for critics if it is required by law to be positive. All in all, a critic is NOT defamation.
France (and Europe in general ?) has strictly no culture of natural Rights.
Google "Déclaration des droits de l'homme", connard.
A French judge that doesn't understand what a restaurant review is? Come on.
Quote which truly comes from Beatrice Hall, my bad. Though, the essence of the quote remains.
s/Voltaire/Evelyn Beatrice Hall/
She wrote that exact quote in a biography about Voltaire, but Voltaire never said that.
Don't write a court review.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
:) Here goes for French and there so called freedom of speech. hAh, people having fought for liberty, fraternity and equality, now they can't even "rate" or 'criticise" a restaurant. That Judge is a dick head. :) Yeah, I challenge him to sue me now for saying that his decision is like that of a child.
A blog is a personal space. You are free to read it, or ignore it.
Anyways, here's an archive of the Article in question: http://web.archive.org/web/201...
Use google translate if you don't understand French.
It mostly is about aperitif not being queried for, not served on time, bad waitressing, lack of good PR by the owner, bad wine serving abilities etc...
Good read if you like food.
My opinion about this, someone went to a restaurant counted what she experienced at the restaurant, and she got fined for counting her experience. Dafuq.
The summary says the fine was imposed for defamation - "similar proceedings for defamation", etc. Btw, how do you distinguish between defamation/slander and critics in the US?
"Within the French judicial system, personal and honest reviews have been sued by the restaurant owners - as such I am unable to leave an honest review of this establishment without risking legal action."
"Unable to leave an honest review"
You're not saying the restaurant is bad, just that you're unable to leave a review.
What was denounced was the fact that freedom of expression does not give you a freedom to falsehood and lies.
The problem with this is who gets to decide what is "true"? If there are laws about denying the holocaust it is only a very short step to having laws against denying say global warming since it would be very easy to argue that denying this might potentially cause a lot more harm to society than denying the holocaust. Even with the current law what happens if a historian uncovers documents suggesting that what was previously thought to be a massacre of 20 Jews outside a French village was actually the killing of 20 French resistance fighters? Can they get prosecuted for denying part of the holocaust even if they have evidence to back up their claims?
The truth is a moving target because we do not, and cannot, know everything so legislating the truth is misguided. In addition it is dangerous because the best way to let everyone know that people like holocaust deniers are idiots is to let them speak. If you gag them and haul them away to prison you have lost the best tool in your arsenal to stop the idiocy spreading or does the French government have such a low opinion of their own citizens that they think they will not see through these idiots?
You local sheriff just called. He want his tank back...
https://www.google.com/search?q=militarization+US+police&source=lnms&tbm=isch&biw=1120&bih=579
If the statements are true or opinions:
Depends how the critics is written, doesn't it? .... :-/
If that asshole of a waiter would not
Likely no way to make fans!
Unfortunately we don't know the exact words
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Did somebody let dice have a go at the codebase? Seriously, it is strange. Even the logo is missing at the top. I checked my script blocking, and fsdn and slashdot are allowed. Only google and rpxnow are blocked. What gives?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
One thing to know is that she thought she could defend herself without an attorney. If she had one, she probably would have win the case... For those speaking french : http://www.lexpress.fr/styles/...
The blogger in question can continue to write, or can't he?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There are no good old glorious times or values here, that's an American concept, no Martin Luther King day, no Alamo, ... the French revolution was started by woman begging for food, WWI by some anarchist.
As quick as slashdotters are to point out the France's "lack of freedom expression", the situation is a bit more subtle than this. The blogger was not fined for of a negative restaurant review. She was fined for saying that people should avoid that place, which is slightly different. According to french law, you may say that you did not like the service or the food, which may be indirectly detrimental to the restaurant's reputation and success. However, you may not directly call for people to boycott a place.
Call it stupid if you want, that's how it is. Never ever have negative reviews been forbidden (unless outright slanderous). Directly attacking some shop's reputation is.
If you go thru the links you will find the following :
http://www.sudouest.fr/2014/07/10/une-blogueuse-condamnee-a-bordeaux-pour-une-critique-culinaire-1611693-3246.php
Roughly translated : 1) the blogger was not asked to change the negative content or even remove it, but the title of her blog simply
2) the blgoger went to the court and defended herself. One things valid in probably msot court of the world, is that if you want to lose, defend yourself. Even in the US it is dimly viewed really.
So as usual it is not as straightfoward as put as the article summary and the onlish translations.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
And you came to that conclusion...how exactly?
I'd say it has to do with the breakneck speed at which they've re-criminalized blasphemy, and stopped people from stating their point of view especially when it's "contrary to political correctness." Europe is pretty good at that, I can think of a dozen cases off the top of my head from Germany to France to the UK.
Om, nomnomnom...
Those statements are factually incorrect.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Yes, there are laws against slander. However, reviews are considered to be opinions here, and we are allowed to express our opinions freely.
As a "former European" you should know how crazy it is to claim that Europe has some sort of common values.
There are no "European values". There's a bunch of countries with different values who happens to be in a trade union together.
It is only the politicians who have been lying about the EU and are trying to make it into United States of Europe who will claim we have a "united Europe" with the same values. Every single true European knows each country has it's own values.
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
My company would be named "Bad Service Company" and give shitty service and food or other products. Then if somebody writes a review then I can sue them and get my money =)
So new business model has been found in France! Does it spread to other countries too?
Not accurate, according to the recent experience of this American. A month ago, I spent a week in Paris, mostly walking around seeing many monuments and visiting several museums. I do not recall seeing any "military personnel" other than the occasional older guy in uniform typical of security personnel at such venues. Walking around Cairo several years ago, the experience was quite different.
My first thought was to never eat in France.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
What's with all the flag-wavers today?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Yet something could be true in a literal sense but give a deceiving view of reality. Imagine you sitting down at a restaurant and offered something to drink. You immediatly request silverware and the next two servers that pass by your table receive the same request. Now you requested silverware 3 times in a literal sense before you could eat your salad but the reality of the story is that you had no problems with getting silverware, you were just being an impatient douchebag.
There, I've set up a situation that could be considered libel/slander/defamation but be true in every sense of the word.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Voltaire is the strangest name I've ever heard.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
France is just a place you have to fly over to get to Italy :)
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
So that Anton Ego never writes a bad review, Gusteau doesn't die as a result of said bad review, and Remey never realizes his dream of being a chef.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Not Europe in general, just anywhere Napoleon conquered.
The French are well known for being overly precious and up themselves when it comes to accepting criticism. Especially when it comes to food. Hence the CAP, which is designed to tax other nations to preserve frenchness.
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"
See, the problem with this statement is that a bad restaurant review isn't defamation, and isn't the same as slander.
So, if I post a restaurant review which says "the service was terrible, the food had a hair in it". That's an honest review.
If I say the chef is a Nazi sympathizer who serves dead babies and cat, sure, that might be defamation.
This stupid notion that you should be free from someone posting negative reviews against your business is just a frightening trend. It undermines factual reporting. It undermines people providing honest feedback. It basically says people can only say nice things about you even if your restaurant sucked.
It basically says "waaah, I'm a child who can't take any criticism without going to the courts".
Slander and Libel have very specific legal definitions. And a bad restaurant review doesn't even come close to that.
But, I'll tell you what, if it makes you feel better ... I think people who think negative restaurant reviews are the same as Defamation must be absolute morons with no clue about how the legal system works.
Good luck in the court system.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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
Clearly the best choice for when you have a bad restaurant experience is now to sue the restaurant.
As a "former European" you should know how crazy it is to claim that Europe has some sort of common values. There are no "European values". There's a bunch of countries with different values who happens to be in a trade union together. It is only the politicians who have been lying about the EU and are trying to make it into United States of Europe who will claim we have a "united Europe" with the same values. Every single true European knows each country has it's own values.
Excellant point. I would add to it there is also a great variation in cultural norms within individual nations, and because of history this eliding near the border often share norms much more with each other than with others in the same nation but distant from them. It's really a different sort of variation than you see in the US as a result of different historical factors on how each nation evolved.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Damm Speelcheeker. Should be those living not this eliding
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
It's clear that people are already fighting this with sarcasm. There are a couple famous products on Amazon with comments that laud them and praise them so much, you would have to be a total idiot to not understand they mean the exact opposite.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
And you came to that conclusion...how exactly?
I'd say it has to do with the breakneck speed at which they've re-criminalized blasphemy, and stopped people from stating their point of view especially when it's "contrary to political correctness." Europe is pretty good at that, I can think of a dozen cases off the top of my head from Germany to France to the UK.
Any that weren't made up by the Daily Mail?
Funny you should mention that.
When flying out of NYC, I flew from La Giardia, the shiteist airport in north america. ;-)
She can't, I would argue. Would you post your comment if you had to pay a 2,500 euros fine? Would this not chill what you would write? Would you not censor you opinion a little, if not a lot? Or do you have 2,500 euros to toss around like water?
Source of endless facepalms.
And that's also the case for the US. Wait, you think Massachusetts and Texas have the same values? I could pull any two states and the discrepancies would be fairly large. The US is just as much of a patchwork of political and cultural lineage as Europe is, the major difference being that they all speak (mostly) the same language.
What they don't understand is the change of era. Before, a review was a note in a magazine. Nowadays there are tons of reviews everywhere on the web, some positive, some negative ; it is now so easy to drop a review that if, for a given restaurant, there are only a 1 or 2 negative reviews, people will not stop there and try the restaurant. In other words a unique web review has much less impact than a review in a magazine as it was the case 20 years ago. The judges don't get that.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Reality check: The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recommends that blasphemy, as an insult to a religion, should not be deemed a criminal offence. That sort of contradicts your claims regarding the cultural background for the legal environment. Furthermore, no "recriminalizing blasphemy at breakneck speed" has actually taken place in Europe; those regulations that exist in Europe are quite antiquated, and most of them haven't even been used for decades. Regarding the sad few cases where that happened, see point 1) again.
Ezekiel 23:20
NO, it isn't. He asked fr silverware three times, as per the statement. Not a lit, no punishment.
Still a douche bag, but that's not a crime.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How about you actually look up who said that?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Compare and contrast :
USA : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
FR [loosely translated by yours truly] : " We the representatives of the Franch people, gathered here in our quality of National Assembly, having realized that the ignorance and disdain towards Human rights are the only causes of public suffering and governments corruption, have decided to expose, in a solemn Declaration, the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of Men ....
Consequently, the National Assemble recognizes and declares, the following rights of Man and the citizen :
1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.
2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.
American declaration submits to the will of some God that maybe some rights exist that are god-made. Hopefully God shall not change to much..
French declaration DECLARE (I know crazy right ?) that based on ethical and moral principles men shall be awarded certain rights and that it is the only duty of government to ensure that those rights shall be preserved.
It is funny when you read these two text to see how American and French government differ, because I think that mostly the french declaration is being upheld by the American government, and vice-versa.
Most notably the American declaration has some Marxism in it : "All men are created equal". Equal. not Equal in right. Equal. Like Jesus (1st marxist in history) wanted it I guess .
French declaration only states that they have equal rights, which is A. much more applicable. B. less wrong. People are not equal. People are different and all possible ways. But they definitely should have the same rights.
It is no wonder the Frnech text went Universal and not the American one, although to be fair, the American one was written earlier and in a more difficult context (of slow collaboration between people who didn't think of themselves as a nation at the time)
Well I for one want to make sure the Streisand effect is in full force so...
1) Il Giardino, the Italian restaurant in Cap-Ferret, France mentioned in this article could sue Caroline Doudet for an opinion expressed in Les Chroniques Culturelles ( link) itself is pretty bad. You read the article and the review gives specific examples of terrible service and recommends that people avoid the restaurant. That is fundamentally what free speech is all about.
2) The war on Scientology. The whole concept that governments have the right to regulate religious beliefs.
3) The idea that objecting to policy by writing articles critical (for example being opposed to the Geneva conventions) constitutes war crimes.
4) Calumnia laws or the idea that defense witnesses can be charged with a crime for disagreeing with the police about what happened.
European countries lack free speech protections. Their system is terrible and it deserves criticism.
You can not blog or cook!
When the United States started we had a bunch of different states with radically different cultures. Free immigration between them eliminated that. The open borders policy and free trade union will do to Europe what the 1760s+ did to the USA if it runs for long enough.
It was written so it would be libel not slander. And yes the USA does have such laws. But the bar is very high to prove libel. The review in question, which mainly gave a factual analysis of bad service, wouldn't be remotely close to libel in the USA.
In the USA that's not libel. If I literally requested service 3 times then even though saying I had to ask 3 times is misleading saying it is not libel. So your example serves its purpose, but it does prove the difference.
No you don't. The person suing you has the burden of proof. They have to show by preponderance of the evidence that you were factually incorrect and that you knew you were factually incorrect.
Yes we do.
https://translate.googleuserco...
I just read it. Basically nothing was said about food in the review, it was about the quality of service from the time they, the reviewer and her mother, arrived at the restaurant till the time they left. Where she went wrong I think is when she said a waitress was a harpy, and the restaurant owner or manager (the wording is not clear) was pretentious and acting like a diva.
I remember reading that people would post negative reviews on Yelp! and ask restaurant owners to pay to remove them. I don't know about the US, but I'd prefer if this nasty tactic isn't protected by the Constitution in Europe. I even found the link - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.... What do you think about that? According to your First Amendment, this man has a right to do that. I'm glad that at least in Europe, a restaurant owner can drag this kind of person to court.
How do you know that "x0ra" is an American? Maybe he lives in one of the better-run European nations.
Europe as-is has no other future than a slow decadence, fading away, remembering the good old, glorious time.
That sounds like America actually. Meanwhile, Germany leads the world in exports. Europe is doing much better than America economically.
the major difference being that they all speak (mostly) the same language.
Used to, not any more. The US is completely bilingual now, with a big portion of the lower class speaking only Spanish, and that proportion is growing every day. It's rather worrisome since instead of being region-based (as in Europe), it's class-based.
Not necessarily, or if it does, it'll take a very long time. Remember, the US states' cultures were all mostly from Britain, and everyone spoke English with a few exceptions (like the Pennsylvania Dutch). Early on, there were settlements by the French, Dutch, Spanish, etc, but the British settlers pushed everyone out (the French only survived in Quebec, which isn't part of the US). So while the different states had somewhat different cultures, some more industrial, some more agricultural, some more religious, they all spoke English. Europe isn't like that; there's dozens of different languages in use there, and a handful with an extremely large number of speakers: English, French, German, and Italian are probably the biggest. There's no way the Germans and French are going to give up their language any time soon. Most likely what'll happen is the place might resemble India: different regions having different official or de-facto first languages, and using English as a common go-between second language. Things already seem to be going this way, as English is the de-facto international language of business. I definitely can foresee some of the small minority languages disappearing in the decades to come, however, such as Romansch, Flemish, Welsh, etc. However, even here, because of the EU, the regions where these minority languages are still used might instead decide to push for independence (like Scotland is doing now) so they can preserve their language as part of their national identity, whereas being part of a larger country (Welsh/Scottish in the UK, Basque in Spain/France) usually results in their language being suppressed.
The notion of natural rights in Europe has been enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights for the past sixty years. So the worst thing that you could say about Europe in this respects is "look, those surely can't be natural rights in their minds because they felt compelled to legislate on that!" or some other bullshit like this. 1) Is about balance, and I don't have the facts at hand (my French sucks). 2) is a qualm that some countries have with a criminal organization. 3) and 4) are completely unheard of where I live, and I happen to live in Europe.
Ezekiel 23:20
I don't think so, at least not in the US. In the US, to successfully pursue a libel/slander case (which BTW is a tort, not a crime), the burden of proof is on the plaintiff who's suing for damages. It's up to him to prove the statement was both false, and that the person making the statement knew it was false. That's pretty hard to do.
"The coffee was served cold": how do prove this is false? At best, you can get a bunch of other customers who were there at the same time and have them testify that their coffee was hot. How does a restaurant get a bunch of customers to come to court to testify on its behalf? Good luck with that. You, the owner, can testify against that, but that doesn't prove anything, because of course you're going to deny that it was cold, so it's just he-said-she-said.
This is why libel/slander cases don't happen much in the US. It's just too hard to prove the person was lying. And if you do, how much is it going to cost you? In the US, you can look at Google Maps reviews or Yelp reviews or whatever and see tons of negative reviews for restaurants. It's extremely common; you won't find many restaurants that don't have some negative reviews, especially since people tend to do reviews more when they're pissed than when they're satisfied. Restaurants(and other businesses) sometimes fight back by posting bogus reviews, or trying to encourage customers to write positive reviews. Anyone who frequents reviews sites knows that a single bad review is just par for the course, as there's always someone who's disgruntled no matter what, and restaurants aren't perfect and have off nights or bad servers sometimes, so you just have to weigh the good with the bad (and also try to spot if they're stuffing the reviews; that's a very bad sign).
For your bar patron/bouncer example, I don't see how that's relevant. You're talking about physical assault there, which is a crime and has zero to do with libel or slander. Those cases usually wind up being about who can get witnesses to testify who started the fight and who was defending himself, and usually it's pretty messy as it's hard even for eyewitnesses to figure out who was in the wrong. Libel/slander isn't about who started what, it's about proving that a statement is a deliberate lie, and that's very hard to do.
The problem with this is who gets to decide what is "true"?
There's no shortage of physical evidence (including photographs) for the Holocaust. Denying this evidence isn't much different than believing that New York City doesn't exist because you've never been there.
Even with the current law what happens if a historian uncovers documents suggesting that what was previously thought to be a massacre of 20 Jews outside a French village was actually the killing of 20 French resistance fighters? Can they get prosecuted for denying part of the holocaust even if they have evidence to back up their claims?
I'm not an expert in European law, but I suspect the answer is no, because they have evidence. The existence of the Holocaust is proven just by all the concentration camp evidence, so as long as they're not denying that, I don't see how there'd be a problem.
Oh, I didn't even mean that about TFA, I was responding to the "Freedom of Expression... is a completely unknown concept in France." comment by parent. He acted like in the US you can speak anything you like without any consequences whatsoever, which is clearly long even in the US, because you can be sued for slander.
As for TFA, I don't know if the court made the correct decision, because I don't know French and I can't read the review in its original to gauge if it was offensive or untrue. It's not just what you say, but how you say it. And if you're lying or not, too.
Actually, I'd like to see stats on that
For every lawsuit like this that gets bad publicity, whose to say there aren't tens or hundreds more that go through without notice. Beyond that, while the base of potential "customers" who may read about the lawsuit and skip dining is somewhat limited, I'd imagine this is getting more notice amongst those that would do restaurant reviews, and possibly chilling speech amongst those that don't wish to be sued.
I'm certainly not advocating extortion. In fact, I would assume what he did was illegal.
What I said is there is a huge difference between Defamation/Libel/Slander and a negative restaurant review on a blog, and being able to sue someone for that.
The first I consider illegal and stupid. The second, I consider to be hugely stupid and a sign that the European courts are moving towards a model where getting your feelings hurt is illegal.
At which point, I'll just hurt all of your feelings now, and say if Europeans want the ability to be free from having their feelings hurt, they're childish morons with a broken legal system, who have lost touch with reality.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I agree it has been enshrined. But it is constantly undermined by the laws. For example to take your response to (2).
If a religious institution commits crimes you charge the individuals for the crime. You don't ban the religion. No one supports the Catholic church having engaged in child molestation, that doesn't mean the practice of the religion of Catholicism should be a crime. Your cavalier disregard for freedom of religion is precisely the point. The idea that you can casually support the use force, the criminal, and civil law system against the practitioners of Scientology because the church has done specific acts the government objects to is why Americans believe Europeans just don't have Freedom of Religion or even know what the concept of Freedom or Religion means. If there was Freedom of religion in France than any French or German person who wanted to congregate to discuss or practice the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics or any other leaders from the Religious Technology Center should be able to do so unmolested by the state. Period.
(1) shouldn't be about balance. The state shouldn't be regulating whether they agree with her assessment or not. Her claim was the service sucked and thus I don't think people should eat there. Whether bad service should or should be a reason people don't go to Il Giardino is not a matter for the state to decide. Again that's what freedom of speech means, the right of people to say and write things that the state disagrees with.
(4) you are just wrong. That's what for example Amanda Knox's parents were charged with and they even tried to go after a Seattle paper. So it absolutely happens.
(3) has gotten brought up all the time. The International Criminal Court (ICC) which is essentially a European institution being a great example which has upheld disagreeing with human rights law as a crime in and of itself.
But how do you know it was like that? I haven't read the original French review, and I can't know if the blogger didn't contact TechDirt with only her own side of the story. I personally don't feel I can make any judgements by the TFA, you'd have to read the court documents to make a conclusion if their decision was fair.
In August of last year when visiting France I went to a restraint called II Giardino at least that's what my friends tell me. I don't remember anything about the event as my few remaining functioning brain cells were thoroughly scrambled after being in a "self-induced" comma for 3 months as I recovered from food poisoning and extreme despair brought about by poor judgment and lack of common sense.
Don't let this happen to you. Stay away from II Giardino and stay (or get) the hades out of France as quickly as you possibly can.
There is so many laws so many statutes that more or less if you are sued, better get a lawyer to defend yourself, because on the OTHER side it will most probably a professional one, if not a team of them. Heck *most* advice asked on slashdot ends up with "ask a real lawyer +5 insightful". Why would it be different here ? Defend yourself and risk missing a statue or law and find yourself in hot places.
It is not much different from other works, really. If you want to construct stuff, ask an architect or a builder firm, if you want to heal a sore, ask a doctor or nurse. Why suddenly because it is "law" it should be different and everybody should be able to do it oneself ? For better or good laws and status have become far too complicated to the average persons. This story is not an example of censure, it is an example of what happens if you think you can defend yourself before a court of law.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I don't know whether it is untrue.
But here is the Google translate of the article: Cape Ferret may be paradise, but it is clear that there is a place once charming, that hardly evokes neither Eden nor that of Epicurus: the little restaurant Il Giardino specializing in pizza (but not only!) as his Italianate name might assume, and where we used to make us once or twice a year. This year, not departing from this tradition now anchored in the course of our holiday, we went to dinner.
As the title of this article suggests, we were disappointed. For convenience, I'll leave it there for the simple past you narrate this adventure that does not lack spice, but which leaves against desired drink side and kindness.
When we arrived, the first waiter asked, logically, if we wanted to eat outside or outside, and as there was a lot of wind, we opted for inside, and so went we install a table. Immediately, a harpy in fluorescent jacket on the coat stares us to scold to move us without authorization (while, and one, we had one, authorization, and two ... I do not yell at me too by servers in general - per person, however, but at least when I'm the customer). In short, it does not start very well, but the misunderstanding up, it slips through our menus. And the first fatal error which will result everything else: it does not ask us, as is the custom, if we want a drink. However, an appetizer, we wanted one (as very few customers obviously, but still, it is our right anyway). Comes a second waitress who took our order, but always ask us if we wanted a drink (logic: his colleague was supposed to have done), we are therefore obliged to ask (we wanted).
Ten minutes pass, and still no shade or our appetizer, or our bottle of wine elsewhere. So immediately after taking our order, the second waitress should have us prepare and serve us: the principle of appetizer, it is possible to quietly wait for his flat. Finally, it seems to me. So I hailed a third server (we will lower this thorny issue of web servers) and told him (kindly!) It would be nice to serve us a drink, because otherwise, our dishes will arrive before him . And bingo, while server # 3 brings us (finally! We started to dry us) as our appetizers desired (without peanuts. Was a long time ago, in this restaurant, we were given peanuts with an aperitif. Elsewhere, even gives us true tapas for not more expensive. Ta Panta Rei), our dishes come with waitress # 1. Dishes we refer because damn, suddenly we're only a drink (their fault) and the accompanying evil pastis steak-frites. The grumpy waitress.
And it continues. While we drank comes the boss, unfriendly despite what she will say well (next to the Café Marly servers deserve the Palme d'Or of courtesy), just tell us to let us know when we want our dishes because they already come to throw a steak and that if it should last 1/2 hour in our history, it would be nice to say. We try to explain our concern, and to point out that, for us and for many years, is the source of the problem in many restaurants that servers have more tables and FHLMC they vadrouillent in the wind, so it is no longer any order and reigns utter disorganization. But now she has an excuse (and, I swear I'm not making): it can not work its servers over 44h and it must give them days off, then understand my brave people, it would make it too personal to pay.
Stop! What? She has no right to work employees 24/24 7/7? But frankly, that's the world!
Brief. We brought our own wine (cold!) And our dishes, claimed twice. The steak was new, ok, that was not the case of pizza, dry around the edges. Good. We, nevertheless, a dessert (that were not the people of the next table, parties swearing they would not return). Ok, the ice balls were great. But good.
My mom will pay, and trying to get back on the incident, and is a patron send graze always foul-mouthed and dismissive. And paid aperitifs, source of conflict, then it is customary in restaurants, to
1) Even in the US, it's about balance. Even with "natural right to free speech", there's still defamation legislation in the US. Why apply different standards to France?
2) That's probably because "go and rape children" does not seem to be a general guideline for the Catholic church, whereas 2) "go and commit a variety of crimes to improve our position" seems to be an official policy of Scientology leadership.
3) Perhaps you should highlight some concrete proceedings. It's hard to discuss abstract claims like that.
4) Apparently, the parents were actually charged with criminal defamation of Italian police regarding the treatment of Amanda Knox by police while in police custody. That seems like a completely different charge to me.
Ezekiel 23:20
Wow, this is sooo wrong. Just about the only commonality that the U.S. population started out with was that we are all, every single one (including American Indians and Eskimos), immigrants from somewhere else. The U.S. has seen waves of immigration from all over the world.
As a personal example, I'll cite my great-grandfather. He helped settle Chisholm, a small town in northern Minnesota in the first decade of the last century. He was a Serbian peasant whose family had spent about 250 years in Croatia but still considered themselves Serb, not Croatian. Still used the Cyrillic alphabet attended the Serbian Orthodox services at somebody's house rather than attend the local Catholic church. Then he gets to the U.S. and everything changed for him.
His new neighbors were Welsh, Italian, Jewish, Slovenian, Russian, German, Norwegian, Finnish, and FSM knows what else. All of those families were founded by peasants right off the boat who had come to work in the iron mines or in the logging industry.
The Welsh were coal miners who got jobs as mine foremen because they were typically the only ones underground who spoke English, which in turn meant that they were the only ones who could talk to the mine management. The rest just showed up at the mine for their shift and got by with a lot of hand waving.
Eventually, they all learned English, took night classes to earn their citizenships, made sure their kids were brought up speaking English, and generally became members of the American culture. But every last one of those families is still fiercely proud of their own distinct heritage and celebrates their differences as well as our shared commonalities.
In the past several decades, Minnesota has seen large influxes of Hmong, Vietnamese, Somali, Afghani, and a couple of other refugee groups. We've even got Mexicans who have chosen to settle here instead of following the crops. Those families have all followed similar paths. We've got a huge Cinco de Mayo celebration in the state capital every year.
(As an aside, why on earth are so many people from the tropics so happy to move to the nation's icebox? :-D)
(As another aside, the far right's screaming about illegal immigration is one of the dumber things that I've ever seen in my life. After all, compared to the Indians and Eskimos we're all newbies.)
The point to remember is that America has never really been a melting pot. We're more of a stew, where each new immigrant population adds its own distinctive flavor.
When I look at the history of Europe since about 1970, I see the same thing happening. It's slower because the national boundaries tend to contain each distinctive national flavor, but trust me. There is already far more commonality across Europe today than there was 40 years ago. It may be hard to see from the inside, but it's there.
You're talking about immigrants who came over in the 1800s, probably late 1800s or maybe even early 1900s. Minnesota was not a state, or even a territory I believe, in 1776.
The discussion was about the early days of the US, when supposedly the different states were very different from each other according to some poster above. Back then, there were no immigrants from Serbia or Croatia; most everyone was from Britain. That's why English was the standard language of the nation, and all its states. Yes, later on, the US became very immigrant-friendly and had people move here from all over Europe plus other places, but we're talking about the early days here, both pre-revolution and for a time after. The different colonies were different from each other in some ways, mainly due to who founded them (some were founded by religious people who wanted a place to practice their weird religion without oppression or criticism, other were founded by people who wanted to take advantage of business and trade opportunities), but they were not as radically different culturally as the poster above alleged.
(As another aside, the far right's screaming about illegal immigration is one of the dumber things that I've ever seen in my life. After all, compared to the Indians and Eskimos we're all newbies.)
How did illegal immigration (aka colonization) from Europe work out for the Indians? Not too well. They probably wished they had had a better way of enforcing their borders.
Thanks to prove me right. Answering an ideological point by insult, how great of you ! Just as I remembered France, uptight and bigoted !
https://www.google.ca/search?q...
Your link to Scientology was about a conspiracy involving leadership the 1970s, 50 years ago. So what? Lutherans started WWII that doesn't mean we ban the Lutheran church. The child abuse scandal was a conspiracy involving leadership possibly up to the Pope and certainly involving cardinals all over the planet. The situation is very similar. But even if they were different so what? Deciding to ban a faith because you don't like the leaders is the opposite of freedom of religion. I'm sure the Tzar's had specific gripes about members of the Jewish leadership but they didn't have audacity to claim they had freedom of religion while trying a persecute a religion into extinction. Freedom or Religion is the right of people to practice you don't like, not their Freedom to choose between state approved faiths.
I'm not applying different standards to France. I'm saying that the problems with European laws are differences in kind not just minor difference in policy. It would never occur to an American government official to do to a church they didn't like what France and Germany are doing to Scientology. I'd object equally if the American government were trying to ban a religion but they don't do that or anything like it.
Similarly with speech. Every American right to express any opinion about anything, period. Without any qualification what-so-ever and without any regulation what-so-ever. American defamation laws are designed to protect speech not to have state control of it. The only thing that defamation is America covers is knowingly conveying false information that is damaging. That's not remotely like the French situation where the state disagreed with her opinion and so fined thousands of Euros.
Yes it is. The parents spoke about official misconduct and were charged with a crime for doing so. That is America is 100% protected speech. I can freely talk about how much I dislike Obama making policy with the aliens from Jupiter and how that resulted in him assassinating Steve Jobs using cancer causing rays and no one could possibly touch me for that. That's what free speech means. Europeans just don't have it.
I own a shop and I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of people who leave negative reviews are clueless, petty, psychotic assholes who have no idea what they're talking about. This one 70 year old bitch left a review saying that after I had to reset Windows 8 to factory default state (after her nephew used it and wouldn't tell them the main login password) that her wireless didn't work and her printer no longer printer. Um yeah, that's what happens when you reset windows. It forgets your wifi passwords and uninstalls your printer software. But try explaining that to her. She was screaming at me on the phone that I don't know what I'm doing and need to give her a refund etc. What a useless waste of space. Those are the people get write negative reviews.
Similarly with speech. Every American right to express any opinion about anything, period. Without any qualification what-so-ever and without any regulation what-so-ever.
Edward Snowden is so lucky to live in such a country!
American defamation laws are designed to protect speech not to have state control of it. The only thing that defamation is America covers is knowingly conveying false information that is damaging. That's not remotely like the French situation where the state disagreed with her opinion and so fined thousands of Euros.
I thought the French court specifically argued that the information was knowingly false, beyond what could have been perceived as a satire. In addition, this was a court of first instance, so there's no reason to assume the thing is settled. Courts make mistakes. Have you read the original court proceedings? Because I haven't, so I don't feel qualified to state anything regarding how that matter was handled.
Yes it is. The parents spoke about official misconduct and were charged with a crime for doing so.
Apparently, it was an alleged misconduct, which might or might not have been a libel/slander/whatever. You also originally mentioned calumny but then silently dropped it when I pointed out that this wasn't the case. Also, being charged and being sentenced are two entirely different things, and without a trial taking place, how do we decide if it was or wasn't anything of the kind?
Europeans just don't have it.
I don't feel limited in my free speech. I most certainly have it.
Ezekiel 23:20
Edward Snowden is not in trouble for his political opinions. Lots of people share his opinions and write about them freely. Snowden is in trouble for leaking intelligence information to foreign governments. I don't agree with Snowden but that has nothing to do with censorship of opinion.
The court argued that "the place to avoid" (the title) was too prominent. That's not knowingly false that's just the judge disagreeing with her assessment. Something that in America they would be prohibited from doing.
Don't care. The case never should have been heard at all. The court shouldn't care whether a review is or is not damaging to a business. And the court shouldn't be ruling on what opinions of the author's aren't fair enough. The specifics of what opinions the state does or does not allow its people to hold aren't relevant to whether France has free speech. That's just a question of what state approved speech is permitted.
I don't need to read the proceedings. The ruling itself is prima facie evidence. The judge disagreed with an opinion so he fined the author.
That was the crime they were charged with. I'm not dropping it at all. That crime shouldn't exist. The existence of that crime implies that people do not have have freedom to express their disagreements with government officials.
Because in America which has free speech such crimes don't exist. It doesn't matter whether the Italian police did or did not strike Amanda on the back of the head. Amanda Knox made a sworn in court statement that she was struck on the back of the head under oath. Thus anyone not present has reason to believe the it occurred and hence in countries that do have free speech slander or libel would be impossible. Period. There is no complex issue here. Your definition of free speech is no different than when Iranian government considers free speech, or what the Nazis considered free speech. Germans under Nazism were always free to come up with interesting ways to praise Hitler. What they weren't free to do was to disagree with his policy or mention the bad stuff he was doing.
Germany has a significant amount of immigration in case you didn't know.
No, I would not shade my opinion a little. I would simply write: "in my opinion ..." ... as any journalist who got sued can.
Ofc she can continue
Sorry, the blogger - judging from some comments - did not even hire a lawyer because she thought she does not need one. If that is true it is plain stupid. Also I'm pretty sure she was not 'fined' but had to pay damages.
There is no 'fine' for libel or slander in european laws, it is a civil case and not a criminal one.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I was in Paris just last week. There were no "locked down" monuments, and there were no armed personnel patrolling the streets. There were some military-types at the Arc De Triomphe, but that's because of Bastille Day celebration preparations -- that is, they were there for a celebration, not for a patrolling. You're spouting nonsense.
On fines verses damages – o.k. you got me there. Technically it is damages.
But it also goes to illustrate my point. I poked around a little, and while I could not find the exact language but it seems to fall squarely in the realm of opinion and satire. From a factual sense it was more correct than my post with the error on "fines".
Should we live in a society where we must always mind our Ps and Qs? A society where we need to consult lawyers constantly? At best we reduce conversation from a vibrant free flow of ideas into the lowest common denominator of bland and inoffensive language and ideas.
Not your fault, I think the story also said "fines".
I guess the "culprit" only lost his cause because she had no or a bad layer.
The consensus is she will appeal the case and likely win then.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Would you remove your appendix yourself ? Don't go in court without a lawyer, specially when the other part has one. That's a stupid move.
In most civilized countries, the government covers the cost of removing your appendix.
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.
The original attack was sadder, and even sadder is for the courts to punish her for it, whether she hired a lawyer or not. Sounds like she's just an average person expressing an opinion that doesn't want to deal with a court hassle for something so mundane. I think you're unfairly blaming the victim here.
Just post your negative reviews from Starbucks (after creating an account on the review site as well as a new email account from Starbucks as well).
No. When I grew up we used to have something very much like the BBC, PBS. They pay for the BBC which is why it exists. If we paid for PBS we would have an excellent system. I'm happy to defend our freedoms, but their spending priorities are far better.
Yes, that's true. Given the alternatives people do freely choose Fox News. I'm ok with that. The cost of freedom is the freedom to say things I don't like, and that includes Fox News.
Exactly what is this "war on Scientology"? The fact that various governments do not recognize it as a bona fide religion, and therefore not eligible for certain benefits enjoyed by real religious groups? If religions get government-determined benefits (like special tax status), then the government must rule on what is a religion. It at least isn't obvious that Scientology is definitely a religion.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
1) State organized hate campaigns designed to encourage private discrimination. This lead to multiple incidents of bomb threats, broken windows and violent harassment at events.
2) Attempts to apply anti drug-addict rules to Scientologists i.e. not consider them of sound mind and thus denied many of the normative protections under law.
3) Work with state sponsored employment unions to work to deny Scientologists employment
3') Often making them ineligible for government jobs.
4) Incidents of refusing to educate the children of Scientologists in public schools for fear of them spread Scientology to other students.
5) Denial of commercial permits that would normally be granted because of associations with Scientology
etc..
Scientology promotes the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power through rituals of faith and worship. How is that not a religion?
That is said by people who do not travel much...
There's something missing to this OP story. Truth is a defense to slander or libel in the US. Unless the law is different in France, if the writer was telling the truth and not using his publication to maliciously and/or unfairly damage the restaurant, the writer should have been protected by privilege. That's if French law is similar to US/British law. I'm guessing it is and there is more to the story. If the writer went beyond expressing his/her opinions and/or made up things in his/her review that were not true, then he/she would be liable for damages. Do a little googling if you are interested. I'll bet there's more to this story.