Irish News fined for restaurant review.

The Irish News newspaper has been ordered to pay a restaurateur £25,000 after a High Court jury found a review about a west Belfast restaurant was defamatory.

story at http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0208/media.html

ITA with Randy. I mean it seems that the whole point of a review is either to damage or elevate the status of a restaurant. I don't see how they[restaurant] can possibly sue and win. I can't imagine what they could have put in this review that would cause a jury to find the paper guilty.

Only way I can see this winning [in a country with basic ideas of freedom of speech/press and a judicial system that's not completely corrupt] is if there's proof that the writer and/or newspaper has undeniable ties to other restaurants in the area, and fabricated the review.

It depends on local law. Libel laws are very different from place to place- in much of Europe, for example, truth is not a defense the way it is in US law. Quite a few countries' libel laws include any sort of disparagement, opinion or not.

[Robin Garr]

It depends on local law. Libel laws are very different from place to place- in much of Europe, for example, truth is not a defense the way it is in US law. Quite a few countries' libel laws include any sort of disparagement, opinion or not.

Even in the US, with our purported freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, the recent rise of the concept "commercial disparagement" (mustn't say anything that might put off stock holders) is scary. Just ask Oprah, even if she did ultimately win against the Texas beef producers.

Currently, though, speech by a published critic is quite clearly established (in the US), most recently by a famous case in NYC in which a Chinese chef took umbrage about a review that colorfully panned his noodle-making skills. The Supreme Court, as I understand it, told him, "Critics exaggerate for effect. Take a hike."

I don't know about Ireland, but as I understand it, the libel laws in Britain are much more repressive than on this side of the water.

I once reviewed a restaurant that was so bad, I called the health department after my visit. I told my editor how negative the review would be if I wrote one, so the review was nixed and I got a kill fee.

The health department did come down heavy on the restaurant a couple of times, and you can be sure I'll never eat there again.

As a matter of interest, our local paper prints health inspections every Thursday and they are highlighted every Sunday on TV. Bad PR sure cleans up restaurants in no time.

Irish law requires only that the plaintiff prove that the statement was published by the defendant. The defendant then has to prove the statement is true in every respect.

Irish law reports are filled with examples of successful cases of this type. There are no definitions of what constitute defamation under Irish law.

[Robin Garr]

Irish law reports are filled with examples of successful cases of this type. There are no definitions of what constitute defamation under Irish law.

It's interesting, Bob, that this principle hasn't had more of a chilling effect on legitimate published criticism in Eire ... obviously The Irish Times felt comfortable publishing its one-star review of Goodfellas despite the low bar against defamation claims. Maybe they felt that no jury would convict them with truth in their defense?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0208/media.html

Peter, we don't see the actual review but the elements they state in the above article seem to me to be valid, if subjective. Do you know the place? Either the review said a lot worse that what is mentioned, or reviews have totally lost their freedom of speech.

Iguess that if the review had been on their website, it'd been pulled pretty sharpish. I guess theres a chance it might be on one of those archive sites.

Seems it was a jury decision -- no way of knowing howt hey are going to jump

I've never been there -- never been to NI.

It's interesting, Bob, that this principle hasn't had more of a chilling effect on legitimate published criticism in Eire )

It wasn't clear in the original item, but according to the BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/nort ... 343535.stm - the case was heard in Northern Ireland, not Eire

If I were on the defense team, I'd have taken the jury out to an exploratory dinner. That should clear the matter up for everyone.

[Robin Garr]

the case was heard in Northern Ireland, not Eire

Ah, <i>colonized</i> Eire, then!

"the case was heard in Northern Ireland, not Eire."

Thanks, Peter, I read too quickly and didn't notice the Belfast reference.

My only experiences have been in Eire -- Don't know anything about the law of defamation in Northern Ireland.

Thanks for setting me straight.

the case was heard in Northern Ireland, not Eire

Ah, <i>colonized</i> Eire, then!

One day it might rise to the level of <i>civilized</i> Eire. But somehow I doubt it, too many Prods running amok!

What are the standards for civil tort libel in the UK?

Here in the USA, the plaintiff has to allege that the statements were false, and that, absent any evidence to the contrary, the preoponderance of the evidence shows that the accused either knew this, or should have known this, had they done due diligence to find out the facts before they published.

In defence, if the accused can show that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the published facts were indeed true, that is an absolute defence.

In a US court, the restaurant would have to show that statements made in the review were something that a resonable impartial observer would find demonstrably false, and either were known to be false, or should have been known to be false had he done due diligence to determine the facts, by the accused.

Simply saying, "It is my personal opinion that this is a crap restaurant for these reasons" is not usually actionable.

I'd have to say based on the press report cited in this discussion group, in absence of reading the original article, that I don't understand why the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. In my opinion, there would have to be actual significant and damaging errors in fact, that the author of the review either did or should have been aware of, in order to find the accused guilty of libel.

Simply expressing an opinon, however forcefully negative, should not be actionable.

Misrepesontration of the facts, if intentional or if the perpetrator should have known better had he done due diligence to check the facts, IS, IMO, actionable.

-Paul W. (I am not a laywer, nor do I claim to be one in discussion groups)

Paul, English defamation law in restaurant reviews must take into account the so-called McLibel case, the longest trial in England ever, the appeal to the The European Court of Human Rights and its decision, and changes in English law thereafter. It's a fascinating story, too long for me to summarize, but worth reading.

Regards, Bob

Todays Guardian has reactions from the restaurant business and some examples of recent reviews in the UK press including

"The worst meal I've ever eaten. Not by a small margin. I mean the worst! The most unrelievedly awful! You don't need to be an atomic physicist to grill steaks."

"All things considered, quite the worst restaurant in London, maybe the world. San Lorenzo serves horrendous food, grudgingly, in a room that is a museum to Italian waiters' taste circa 1976."

"The taste and texture of the pease pudding reminded me of occasions when I have accidentally inhaled while emptying the Dyson." (Dyson is a brand of bagless vacuum cleaner)

"It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine anyone conjuring up a restaurant, even in their sleep, where the food in its mediocrity comes so close to inedible."

"I got the impression from the menu the food has a Vietnamese slant to it. [What] looked like a sea mine in miniature was the most disgusting thing I've put in my mouth since I ate earthworms at school."

Rest of quotes an article at http://travel.guardian.co.uk/article/20 ... lnews.food

the case was heard in Northern Ireland, not Eire

Ah, <i>colonized</i> Eire, then!

One day it might rise to the level of <i>civilized</i> Eire. But somehow I doubt it, too many Prods running amok!

It's not clear to me how anti-Protestant insults are any funnier than anti-Catholic insults. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

"All things considered, quite the worst restaurant in London, maybe the world. San Lorenzo serves horrendous food, grudgingly, in a room that is a museum to Italian waiters' taste circa 1976."

Hey, if that's over by Charing Cross Station, I've been there. And if that's not the one, the one by Charing Cross Station must be there other place. Easily the most egregious "Italian" restaurant I've ever been in. I still shudder when I think about it. The dust-covered plastic "grapevines" on the ceiling and the 60s record albums stapled to the walls were actually the best things about the place.

the case was heard in Northern Ireland, not Eire

Ah, <i>colonized</i> Eire, then!

One day it might rise to the level of <i>civilized</i> Eire. But somehow I doubt it, too many Prods running amok!

It's not clear to me how anti-Protestant insults are any funnier than anti-Catholic insults. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

The short answer to your question is this: There is very little funny to be found in Northern Ireland over the last 40 years; at the same time, there is much history of uncivilized acts by its citizens, its police force, its government, and its British overseers. During that time, the organizations of authority in the country were almost exclusively Protestant. Today, the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist establishment appears to be as in-control and intractable as it ever was. Yes, some individuals seem desirous of peace. But I see no signs that the mass of activist populace (on either side of the Troubles) is ready to come to an accommodation with each other. Further, there are just far too many Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist factions for me to ever expect they will ever all agree to some settlement of the Troubles. Without unity among the Protestant factions, there will not be a settlement. And without that settlement, civilization as we know it will not exist in Northern Ireland. The Protestants/Unionists/Loyalists have always had the power to stop the Troubles. Rightly or wrongly, they have never done so. I doubt they will any time soon.

Maybe that wasn't short. But it is an answer.

I hope my review of your book in Grapestalk and Amazon was OK Peter?

[Robin Garr]

Maybe that wasn't short. But it is an answer.

Now tell us about Palestine, Mike ... but wait, maybe you already did ...

Maybe that wasn't short. But it is an answer.

Now tell us about Palestine, Mike ... but wait, maybe you already did ...

Exactly. Or pretty close.

I don't think the McLibel applies very much to restaurant reviews. In the McLibel case, the defendants defamatory and unsubstantiated writings were presented as fact, not opinion. The judge specifically called that out as the crux of why it constituted libel. I think that pamphlet would have been actionable in the USA, too.

A restaurant review, on the other hand, is presented as personal opinion (that is what "review" means), and the average reasonable reader would recognize it as such.

Even in light of McLibel, I think that as long as the reviewer gets his or her facts straight, the opinion part of the piece is not actionable, however negative it might be. An example:

Saying, "the steak arrived with maggots crawling all over it" when in fact it wasn't presented this way would be actionable.

Saying, "their steak was overdone and tasted like a piece of shoe leather" is not actionable, as it is expressing a personal opinion.

-Paul W.