ducha@ihuxu.UUCP (D.K.Nguyen) (03/09/84)
More on Old Peking.... Remember the last posting on the mal-treatment, somehow the article got to the owner(s?) of the restaurant. They called up the friend of mine who made the reservation, and demanded an apology from us. The ground for the "sorry" is that my friend had previously agreed to their arrangement (tables, foods,...). Now that they are not going to get one from me, they said that (I quoted from my friend) I have no right to post such criticism (legally!). I didn't like their treatment because I was paying the same amount like everybody else, but I do not get the same services (full menu to choose from, table arrangement, etc...) Although I recognized their points of view, I believe that the freedom of speech still rules. My question to you the net-readers: "What is the consumers' right? To only speak out positive criticism but not negative ones?". Duc Kim Nguyen ihnp4!ihuxu!ducha -- Duc Kim Nguyen ihnp4!ihuxu!ducha
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (03/11/84)
You'd have to consult a lawyer to be sure. But I think that you can post negative remarks on the net, but be sure that you can justify anything you say, since truth of the remarks is a defence against charges of libel (I assume). Negative remarks about any person or organization should be reasonably phrased, for the circumstances, so that you aren't open to a charge of malicious defamation or whatever it's called. Julian Davies (UWO, Ontario, Canada)
ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) (03/12/84)
(Paraphrased) Query: Do you have the right to criticise the restaurant on the net or in public? Answer: Just called a fellow on my dart team, and who just happens to be a lawyer. Response: First, truth is an absolute defense. If it's true, it can be said or published. (The net is considered publishing) Secondly, First Amendment rights also apply. He said that this situation is exactly analogous to a restaurant reviewer panning a place in the newspaper--from the viewpoint of the law, you and the reviewer are in identical positions. If food or service are terrible, go ahead and tell the world! For those of you who may wonder, as I did, what this means to slander and libel laws: Both relate to false information. Now, don't run out and say or print just any juicy thing you may know about somebody...there's another point, invasion of privacy, that may render even valid information unprintable. This is how Jackie Onassis got rid of that joker who was popping up out of her salad bowl whenever she turned around. My comment is that this is a free legal opinion, so take it on that level; *I* know and trust my lawyer friend, and his opinion; and it sounds quite reasonable (yeah, I know, since when is reasonableness a requisite for the law...) Also, he was quite positive about this. There was none of the hemming and hawing that legal types use to cover themselves when they want to leave themselves an out. Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (03/14/84)
If I remember correctly, as long as you don't say anything factually untrue, or expressly for the purpose of hurting their business, it's not libel or slander. Otherwise, you are a reviewer, and are not legally bound to retract or apologize. Dave Decot "Non-Americans are people, too." (No address, moving to CA)