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.
Your comment sucks ;-)
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.
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.
Glad for you. But, in France, out of the thousands and thousands of negative critics on the web, it happens sometimes/rarely that someone is prosecuted. And when this (rarely) happens, the media covers largely the fact, as it definitely is an exception. You can bet the woman will change lawyers, appeal, and win.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
But as a down side you do get to eat in American "Restaurants"
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...
France (and Europe in general ?) has strictly no culture of natural Rights.
And you came to that conclusion...how exactly?
Ezekiel 23:20
Seriously?? In a country where people plea-bargain to get a shorter sentence, even if they know they're innocent because they can't afford a descent lawyer, therefore leaving the real perp to go free and a 'magically solved' crime. A country that rich get off free, and the poor get sentenced. You can't even fly FPV now! No problem here in Europe.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Actually she was not vulgar or malicious at all, didn't mention anything that stands out as mean even.. just descriptive of mostly extremely poor service and mediocre food. You can read her (french) blog post here:
http://web.archive.org/web/201...
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/...
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.
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.
I had RTFA. http://www.arretsurimages.net/breves/2014-07-08/Critique-de-restaurant-blogueuse-condamnee-id17677
Says she didn't take a lawyer (she didn't think she had the time to get them up to speed with what was going on) and won't appeal. A lawyer (maître Eolas) that does a lot of vulgarisation about french justice says that he doesn't know of another judgement against a noncommercial personal blog, and he thinks the problem might be that she didn't get a lawyer.
The actual review is on the webarchive. Reviewer and her mother used to go to that restaurant and have a good time. That time wasn't great, food came as the same time as apéritifs. Reads quite factual, and it is tagged as a piece of personal experience.
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
So if you can't afford a lawyer, there's no law for you? :D So next time you can't afford a lawyer, don't bother fighting the case, shoot yourself? is that the logic?
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.
But as a down side you do get to eat in American "Restaurants"
Which have... french fries so I don't see what your problem is.
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
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?
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
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.
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.