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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't write a court review.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
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?
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
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.
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