French Blogger Fined For Negative Restaurant Review 424
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."
Livin' in the USA (Score:1, Informative)
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.
TripAdvisor (Score:5, Informative)
Mod Me Up! (Score:1, Informative)
So... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Too true... (Score:4, Informative)
One of my mum's colleagues was applying for a job in a different part of the civil service, so she was asked to provide a reference. My mum didn't want to be responsible for this person getting a job where they could possibly do some real damage, but at the same time couldn't give a negative reference. So she ended up giving the following:
Works well under direct supervision
Compare this to the UK Ordnance Survey where I temped for a year - there were permanent member of staff with 20 years of production experience who still couldn't read a map. One guy was proud of the fact that he came "highly recommended" when he got passed from department to department. Not only was he completely useless, but incredibly sleazy - no wonder they wanted shot of him.
So... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Do as they do in job references (Score:4, Informative)
The review of Il Giordano (Google translate) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Freedom of Expression... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
She chose to not have a lawyer, and to not defend (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Freedom of Expression... (Score:3, Informative)
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.