Old Peking again ...

Thread View: ih.eats

4 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

4 total messages Started by D.K.Nguyen Fri, 09 Mar 1984 19:38

Author: D.K.Nguyen
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 1984 19:38

20 lines
1496 bytes

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

Re: Old Peking again ...

Author: Julian Davies
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 1984 19:29

8 lines
1000 bytes

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)

Re: Old Peking again ...

Author: Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 1984 20:30

30 lines
2075 bytes

(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

Re: Old Peking again ...

Author: Dave Decot
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 1984 22:08

7 lines
894 bytes

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)

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads