French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

User avatar
klr
(%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
Posts: 32964
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
About me: The money was just resting in my account.
Location: Airstrip Two
Contact:

French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by klr » Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:29 pm

Publish and be damned sued for speaking your mind. Right or wrong?

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28331598
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.

Ms Doudet said the decision made it a crime to be highly ranked on search engines.

The restaurant owner said the article's prominence was unfairly hurting his business.

Ms Doudet was sued by the owner of Il Giardino restaurant in the Aquitaine region of southwestern France after she wrote a blogpost entitled "the place to avoid in Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino".

According to court documents, the review appeared fourth in the results of a Google search for the restaurant. The judge decided that the blog's title should be changed, so that the phrase: "the place to avoid" was less prominent in the results.

The judge sitting in Bordeaux also pointed out that the harm to the restaurant was exacerbated by the fact that Ms Doudet's fashion and literature blog "Cultur'elle" had around 3,000 followers, indicating she thought it was a significant number.

'Perverse'

"This decision creates a new crime of 'being too highly ranked [on a search engine]', or of having too great an influence'," Ms Doudet told the BBC.

"What is perverse, is that we look for bloggers who are influential, but only if they are nice about people," she added.

The judge told Ms Doudet to amend the title of the blog and to pay €1,500 ($2,000; £1,200).

n 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.

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."

'Weeks of anguish'

A French lawyer and blogger who writes under the pseudonym Maître Eolas, said: "It seems to me that the judge did not understand the technical issues." He added that, in French law, this type of decision would not create legal precedence.

Under French law, a judge can issue an emergency order to force a person to cease any activity they find to be harming the other party in the dispute.

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.
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner

The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

:mob: :comp: :mob:

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by mistermack » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:21 am

Quite right.
You can write what you want, but nobody should be immune from redress, if your words cause harm.

There are many ways of presenting the same facts. Even if your facts are true, you can harm someone with an unfair presentation of them. If you dish it out, you have to be prepared to take it too.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74223
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by JimC » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:24 am

mistermack wrote:Quite right.
You can write what you want, but nobody should be immune from redress, if your words cause harm.

There are many ways of presenting the same facts. Even if your facts are true, you can harm someone with an unfair presentation of them. If you dish it out, you have to be prepared to take it too.
I agree in part, but the harm was greatly magnified by the Google Search. If it had remained an obscure search result a few pages in, little or no harm would have occurred. Generally, restaurant reviewers should be able to state negative reviews (within certain limits) without fear or favour.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41094
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by Svartalf » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:40 am

Words causing harm? and WTF if she happens to be absolutely right?
Plus emmergency hearing? man, I hope the judges went there incognito and were satisfied, otherwise this is gross miscarriage of justice.
I hope she appeals, right up to the ECHR, and wins...
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
tattuchu
a dickload of cocks
Posts: 21890
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:59 pm
About me: I'm having trouble with the trolley.
Location: Marmite-upon-Toast, Wankershire
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by tattuchu » Thu Jul 17, 2014 12:11 pm

I wonder if the negative publicity from the case will hurt the restaurant's business? :hehe:
People think "queue" is just "q" followed by 4 silent letters.

But those letters are not silent.

They're just waiting their turn.

User avatar
piscator
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:11 am
Location: The Big BSOD
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by piscator » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:51 pm

I think if the review has strong basis in fact, then that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
If not, then there should be a clear path to redress if a victim can prove harm.

But with a language as rich in satire, parody, and lampoon as French, that standard may well place an undue burden on the courts...

User avatar
jaydot
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:16 pm
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by jaydot » Thu Jul 17, 2014 6:10 pm

this world gets dafter by the minute.
open source the world.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by mistermack » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:19 pm

JimC wrote:
mistermack wrote:Quite right.
You can write what you want, but nobody should be immune from redress, if your words cause harm.

There are many ways of presenting the same facts. Even if your facts are true, you can harm someone with an unfair presentation of them. If you dish it out, you have to be prepared to take it too.
I agree in part, but the harm was greatly magnified by the Google Search. If it had remained an obscure search result a few pages in, little or no harm would have occurred. Generally, restaurant reviewers should be able to state negative reviews (within certain limits) without fear or favour.
That's a bit similar to a mugger who mugs someone who turns out to have a heart condition, and dies of a heart attack.
It might be an exacerbation that's beyond his control, but it's a chance you take, if you go mugging.

Someone might make a witty comment on here (unlikely) and it could go viral, causing some other person intense distress. That ought to be something that the poster pays the price for, not the victim.

If you have a bad experience at a restaurant, it would be safer just to report the facts, and not advise people that it's a place to avoid. After all, you might have just been unlucky. Whereas by advising people to avoid the place, you are claiming that it's somehow typical.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41094
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by Svartalf » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:28 pm

Well, a bad experience in a place of commerce is once too many, and you have a right to state your experience and opinions.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by mistermack » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:36 pm

Svartalf wrote:Well, a bad experience in a place of commerce is once too many, and you have a right to state your experience and opinions.
It's not always the restaurant that's to blame.
I've been with friends who complained in restaurants, and we all knew there was nothing wrong.
Some customers are complete cunts.

I've got two friends who regularly complain about fuck-all. You feel like giving them a kicking.
They can spoil an evening for everyone, and I feel really sorry for the people serving them.

One instance, one of these guys ordered something with blackbean sauce in a Chinese. He SWORE that it was off, and sent it back, and made a big fuss. It was just that he'd never eaten blackbean before. I tasted it, and it tasted exactly like blackbean sauce should taste, and was definitely not ''off''.
They get the drink in them, and just start making a performance, it's about ego a lot of the time.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41094
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by Svartalf » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:41 pm

Still, unless Justice has ascertained that the blog was unfounded slander, it's a miscarriage of justice to interfere with somebody's stated opinions on the excuse it might hurt some economic interest.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by mistermack » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:52 pm

Svartalf wrote:Still, unless Justice has ascertained that the blog was unfounded slander, it's a miscarriage of justice to interfere with somebody's stated opinions on the excuse it might hurt some economic interest.
The blogger didn't object.
The court made an ''emergency'' judgement, designed to reduce the overall harm done, by acting quickly. The blogger could have objected, but as it was also in her interest to reduce the harm done, she didn't.

Nobody's freedom was curtailed. You can say what you like, but you have to be prepared to back it up.
And if it doesn't go your way, that's your fault. Everybody should have the right of redress, if someone causes them harm. Whether with words, or bullets, or fire, or anything else. Words are not exempt.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74223
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by JimC » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:03 pm

I think a restaurant reviewer has every right to write negative comments about the food and/or service, but, as mm said, it may be a step to far to advise others to avoid the place...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
klr
(%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
Posts: 32964
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
About me: The money was just resting in my account.
Location: Airstrip Two
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by klr » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:59 pm

JimC wrote:I think a restaurant reviewer has every right to write negative comments about the food and/or service, but, as mm said, it may be a step to far to advise others to avoid the place...
Surely it's a very small step from the first to the second? :ask:

Anyway, I'm more concerned about the search engine issue. I suppose we should be thankful that Ratz public threads are unlikely to rank highly in any search results. But we could get unlucky. :nervous:
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner

The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

:mob: :comp: :mob:

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74223
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: French blogger fined over review's Google search placing

Post by JimC » Thu Jul 17, 2014 10:05 pm

klr wrote:
JimC wrote:I think a restaurant reviewer has every right to write negative comments about the food and/or service, but, as mm said, it may be a step to far to advise others to avoid the place...
Surely it's a very small step from the first to the second? :ask:

Anyway, I'm more concerned about the search engine issue. I suppose we should be thankful that Ratz public threads are unlikely to rank highly in any search results. But we could get unlucky. :nervous:
I know what you mean by a small step, but it may be a rather important distinction in the legal sense...

Anyway, if Ratz survived the whole Pappa rape/PZ saga, we can survive anything... :hehe:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests