• Blogger fined over review's Google search placing
    33 replies, posted
[quote]"This decision creates a new crime of 'being too highly ranked [on a search engine]', or of having too great an influence',"[/quote] [quote]A French judge has ruled against a blogger because her scathing restaurant review was too prominent in Google search results. The judge ordered that the post's title be amended and told the blogger Caroline Doudet to pay damages.[/quote] [quote]The judge told Ms Doudet to amend the title of the blog and to pay €1,500 ($2,000; £1,200). In her article, which has now been deleted, she complained of poor service and what she said was a poor attitude on the part of the owner during a visit in August 2013.[/quote] [quote]The owner took issue with the whole article. However, the judge limited her decision to its title. The restaurateur did not respond to the BBC. But, according to the website Arret sur Internet, he said: "Maybe there were some errors in the service, that happens sometimes in the middle of August - I recognise that. "But this article showed in the Google search results and did my business more and more harm, even though we have worked seven days a week for 15 years. I could not accept that. "People can criticise, but there is a way of doing it - with respect. That was not the case here."[/quote] [url=http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28331598]**SOURCE**[/url] Oh fuck off. Nobody can take criticism anymore.
Amy's Baking Company v2, that is all
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45408827]Amy's Baking Company v2, that is all[/QUOTE] I don't remember Amy's Baking Company having a legal dispute over Google rankings.
Now people will find these news articles about it instead. [editline]16th July 2014[/editline] Guess they'll be taking BBC to court next.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45408863]I don't remember Amy's Baking Company having a legal dispute over Google rankings.[/QUOTE] maybe not over the rankings, but they still can't take valid criticism.
I don't see how she could be fined for this, since the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen fully allow freedom of speech and press: [Quote]The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save [if it is necessary] to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.[/quote] With a few exceptions however: [quote]In addition, France adheres to the European Convention on Human Rights and accepts the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. The Press Law of 1881, as amended, guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several exceptions. The Pleven Act of 1972 (after Justice Minister René Pleven) prohibits incitement to hatred, discrimination, slander and racial insults. The Gayssot Act of 1990 prohibits any racist, anti-Semite, or xenophobic activities, including Holocaust denial. The Law of 30 December 2004 prohibits hatred against people because of their gender, sexual orientation, or disability. An addition to the Public Health Code was passed on the 31 December 1970, which punishes the "positive presentation of drugs" and the "incitement to their consumption" with up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000. Newspapers such as Libération, Charlie Hebdo and associations, political parties, and various publications criticizing the current drug laws and advocating drug reform in France have been repeatedly hit with heavy fines based on this law. France does not implement any preliminary government censorship for written publications. Any violation of law must be processed through the courts.[/quote] Her review still violates none of those.
[quote] The summary decision is intended to be an emergency measure to protect the person deemed to be a victim and can be overturned or upheld if the parties go to a full hearing. In order to issue the order under French law, the judge has only to identify a wrong on the defendant's part, a negative effect on that of the appellant and a causal relationship between the two. Ms Doudet said she did not believe she will appeal because she did "not want to relive weeks of anguish". Ms Doudet added that, because the decision was taken at an emergency hearing, she did not have time to find legal representation, so had represented herself in court.[/quote]
I can understand the harm such a prominent comment caused. Especially if it was just a one-off mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, and if the service improved since then or the mistake doesn't happen regularly, the owners of the restaurant shouldn't have to live with such a poor reputation over a single incident. That would be like being tested [B]every single day you work[/B], and if you screw up ONCE, you're out of luck (if indeed this review did harm their income as much as they say). Can anyone here honestly say they've never made a mistake at work? On the flip side, it's very difficult because it's not often that you judge a restaurant over a single opinion, but what does make a difference is whose opinion it is/how popular it appears to be. In addition, the blogger should [I]never[/I] have been fined and should be allowed her opinion on the matter
[QUOTE=code_gs;45408907]I don't see how she could be fined for this, since the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen fully allow freedom of speech and press: With a few exceptions however: Her review still violates none of those.[/QUOTE] The judge deemed the title to be slander (I assume), and issued a summary decision, I'm sure if she appeals the decision will be overturned.
[QUOTE=Trumple;45408981]I can understand the harm such a prominent comment caused. Especially if it was just a one-off mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, and if the service improved since then or the mistake doesn't happen regularly, the owners of the restaurant shouldn't have to live with such a poor reputation over a single incident. That would be like being tested [B]every single day you work[/B], and if you screw up ONCE, you're out of luck (if indeed this review did harm their income as much as they say). Can anyone here honestly say they've never made a mistake at work? On the flip side, it's very difficult because it's not often that you judge a restaurant over a single opinion, but what does make a difference is whose opinion it is/how popular it appears to be. In addition, the blogger should [I]never[/I] have been fined and should be allowed her opinion on the matter[/QUOTE] My sister works for a wedding planning company who regularly gets bad reviews because the bridezillas (or families of the brides,) are morons who don't know what the fuck they are supposed to do and sometimes the venues the brides pick are fucking terrible (even though the wedding planning company will explicitly warn them not to choose them.) Even if the wedding planning company does everything absolutely perfectly the moron brides will automatically blame everything bad that happens on the planning company who will get a shitty review online through no fault of their own. Sometimes these reviews online are stupid, unjustified, and can cause businesses very real damages in lost customers.
But it would be treading a very thin line to let people just go and sue over bad reviews.
Anyone know the slanderous title that she posted?
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;45409201]Anyone know the slanderous title that she posted?[/QUOTE] The place to avoid in Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino
My friend just pointed out that this lawsuit is probably gonna be in the top search results for this place now Shit, I'm late
[QUOTE=mobrockers;45409019]The judge deemed the title to be slander (I assume), and issued a summary decision, I'm sure if she appeals the decision will be overturned.[/QUOTE] I would like to see the actual blog post in question; from the article, it sounds like a normal bad review.
[QUOTE=code_gs;45409765]I would like to see the actual blog post in question; from the article, it sounds like a normal bad review.[/QUOTE] It was deleted.
[QUOTE=Lijitsu;45409881]It was deleted.[/QUOTE] I saw that in the article, but does anyone have a mirror of it?
[QUOTE=code_gs;45409765]I would like to see the actual blog post in question; from the article, it sounds like a normal bad review.[/QUOTE] Yeah, except she apparently has such a high online following that her blogpost was one of the results on the front page when googling the restaurant. I can imo understand why that wouldn't exactly be fair to the restaurant over one bad review.
Unless the review said something abjectly and demonstrably inaccurate, it's complete nonsense that somebody should be fined for a review. I don't care how much it's hurting your business, people have every right to say you're not doing a good job, and in whatever way they want to. Respect is not a right, it's a privilege that must be earned, especially on the internet.
[QUOTE=code_gs;45410143]I saw that in the article, but does anyone have a mirror of it?[/QUOTE] [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20131204090140/http://leschroniquesculturelles.com/2013/08/24/lendroit-a-eviter-au-cap-ferret-il-giardino/[/url] [editline]16th July 2014[/editline] Here's the google translate: [quote]Cape Ferret may be paradise, but it is clear that there is a place once charming, that hardly evokes neither Eden nor that of Epicurus: the little restaurant Il Giardino specializing in pizza (but not only!) as his Italianate name might assume, and where we used to make us once or twice a year. This year, not departing from this tradition now anchored in the course of our holiday, we went to dinner. As the title of this article suggests, we were disappointed. For convenience, I'll leave it there for the simple past you narrate this adventure that does not lack spice, but which leaves against desired drink side and kindness. When we arrived, the first waiter asked, logically, if we wanted to eat outside or outside, and as there was a lot of wind, we opted for inside, and so went we install a table. Immediately, a harpy in fluorescent jacket on the coat stares us to scold to move us without authorization (while, and one, we had one, authorization, and two ... I do not yell at me too by servers in general - per person, however, but at least when I'm the customer). In short, it does not start very well, but the misunderstanding up, it slips through our menus. And the first fatal error which will result everything else: it does not ask us, as is the custom, if we want a drink. However, an appetizer, we wanted one (as very few customers obviously, but still, it is our right anyway). Comes a second waitress who took our order, but always ask us if we wanted a drink (logic: his colleague was supposed to have done), we are therefore obliged to ask (we wanted). Ten minutes pass, and still no shade or our appetizer, or our bottle of wine elsewhere. So immediately after taking our order, the second waitress should have us prepare and serve us: the principle of appetizer, it is possible to quietly wait for his flat. Finally, it seems to me. So I hailed a third server (we will lower this thorny issue of web servers) and told him (kindly!) It would be nice to serve us a drink, because otherwise, our dishes will arrive before him . And bingo, while server # 3 brings us (finally! We started to dry us) as our appetizers desired (without peanuts. Was a long time ago, in this restaurant, we were given peanuts with an aperitif. Elsewhere, even gives us true tapas for not more expensive. Ta Panta Rei), our dishes come with waitress # 1. Dishes we refer because damn, suddenly we're only a drink (their fault) and the accompanying evil pastis steak-frites. The grumpy waitress. And it continues. While we drank comes the boss, unfriendly despite what she will say well (next to the Café Marly servers deserve the Palme d'Or of courtesy), just tell us to let us know when we want our dishes because they already come to throw a steak and that if it should last 1/2 hour in our history, it would be nice to say. We try to explain our concern, and to point out that, for us and for many years, is the source of the problem in many restaurants that servers have more tables and FHLMC they vadrouillent in the wind, so it is no longer any order and reigns utter disorganization. But now she has an excuse (and, I swear I'm not making): it can not work its servers over 44h and it must give them days off, then understand my brave people, it would make it too personal to pay. Stop! What? She has no right to work employees 24/24 7/7? But frankly, that's the world! Brief. We brought our own wine (cold!) And our dishes, claimed twice. The steak was new, ok, that was not the case of pizza, dry around the edges. Good. We, nevertheless, a dessert (that were not the people of the next table, parties swearing they would not return). Ok, the ice balls were great. But good. My mom will pay, and trying to get back on the incident, and is a patron send graze always foul-mouthed and dismissive. And paid aperitifs, source of conflict, then it is customary in restaurants, to offer customers when there is a concern (given the margin that are above, they can afford it). Conclusion? A restaurant where we will go over because the boss thinks he's a diva (although, seriously, it is not the owner of Chez Hortense, either), one of the waitresses would be well advised never to work in London because it is not likely to be able to live his tips, and we care about the customer and the business sense is approximate. I urge you to note your blacklist if you're in the neighborhood! (All for two appetizers ... what hold the wars)[/quote]
sucks she doesn't want to appeal, I'm betting some community will end up donating a bunch of money to them though
So if i go and tell people that Kogi korean grill (where i used to work but quit because fuck them) that they cross contaminate their utensil's and leave meat uncovered in the refrigerator so don't eat there. i could get sued even though that's pretty fucking much true?
And now that everyone know of this case, even more people are going to avoid it.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;45412613]And now that everyone know of this case, even more people are going to avoid it.[/QUOTE] nah, I'll just push the envelope
[QUOTE=confinedUser;45412540]So if i go and tell people that Kogi korean grill (where i used to work but quit because fuck them) that they cross contaminate their utensil's and leave meat uncovered in the refrigerator so don't eat there. i could get sued even though that's pretty fucking much true?[/QUOTE] no because this happened in france
[QUOTE=Bazsil;45413074]no because this happened in france[/QUOTE] But, if you write a review that says something objectively untrue ("the waiter spat in our food," for example), you could get sued over that in the US.
[QUOTE=confinedUser;45412540]So if i go and tell people that Kogi korean grill (where i used to work but quit because fuck them) that they cross contaminate their utensil's and leave meat uncovered in the refrigerator so don't eat there. i could get sued even though that's pretty fucking much true?[/QUOTE] Anyone can be sued over anything..
Man, fuck France. Their actions as of late make it obvious that they care more about businesses than the happiness and well being of the individual there.
[QUOTE=darunner;45419976]Man, fuck France. Their actions as of late make it obvious that they care more about businesses than the happiness and well being of the individual there.[/QUOTE] I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say this about the United States as well.
It seems like all of you aren't reading the article... [quote] The summary decision is intended to be an [B]emergency measure[/B] to protect the person deemed to be a victim and can be overturned or upheld if the parties go to a full hearing. In order to issue the order under French law, [B]the judge has only to identify a wrong on the defendant's part, a negative effect on that of the appellant and a causal relationship between the two.[/B] [/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.