from the justice-is-blind,-and-sometimes-stupid dept.
The BBC reports that:
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 owners said the article's prominence was unfairly hurting their 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.
"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 Euros 1,500 ($2,000; £1,200) in damages to the restaurant, as well as Euros 1,000 to cover the complainant's costs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Tuesday July 22 2014, @03:24AM
Streisand effect.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday July 22 2014, @03:34AM
Was thing the same thing.
Think their business is bad now, wait till a bunch of people start dumping on the French equivalent of Zagat or Yelp.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Wootery on Tuesday July 22 2014, @12:46PM
A reddit thread [reddit.com] points out that [google.fr] this has [yelp.com] already happened [google.com].
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Tuesday July 22 2014, @03:24AM
(Score: 1) by gizmobeast on Tuesday July 22 2014, @05:19AM
nifty alternative :)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Tuesday July 22 2014, @04:48AM
This must be some sort of abuse of power. I realize the French Common Law system is different, and better in some ways (not precedent based), but doesn't an actual law need to have been broken? Is this something that is actually on the books or is it the equivalent of a 'civil suit'?
(Score: 4, Informative) by jelizondo on Tuesday July 22 2014, @06:47AM
The French code is based on Roman Law and the Napoleonic Code; "Common law" refers precisely to precedent based law, such as found in England and the U.S.
But even in the Roman Law based systems, there is juriprudence, which means, interpretation of the law can be shaded by previous rulings, but only of higher courts, such as Apellate Courts (for district courts) or the Supreme Court, for everyone.
Not nitpicking, just informing you.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday July 22 2014, @11:53AM
Thanks, I actually knew the first part, well, the Napoleanic Code part, not the Roman part, but it was late. The legal system of Quebec here in Canada is based on it as well. Thanks for the correction!
(Score: 2, Informative) by tonyPick on Tuesday July 22 2014, @08:10AM
So, reading up on this, it looks like this was some sort of emergency order, intended to be used ahead of an actual hearing in order to limit damage while the court process goes ahead
From the BBC (TFA)
Which isn't so unreasonable on the face of it, assuming there's an actual hearing (which it doesn't sound like will be the case here).
However in that context the damages and costs award is the more worrying/chlling part, and I wonder if it was related to:
Ouch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 22 2014, @05:13AM
one extortionist blogger less.
*kidding* (but valid).
better just write a comment if something is like really really good. else
the best thing is to not mention it at all methinks ...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nyder on Tuesday July 22 2014, @05:16AM
Wonder when the USA is going to start making laws like this? After all, this is a pure Pro Business law, so the corporations would love it. Finding honest reviews of things will only happen on hidden websites and Tor networks.
(Score: 3, Informative) by anubi on Tuesday July 22 2014, @05:38AM
That is my take on it as well, as I have personally written quite a few reviews on Amazon and AliExpress.
I try to be honest. If there is one thing I can say about Amazon - they let you revise your review later, as often one does not discover things until its been put in use for a while. AliExpress does not let one revise reviews.
I count on reviews a lot before investing money - but one has to learn how to read them. There are paid reviewers out there who give raving reviews to junk.
I almost always start at the bottom of the list and read upward... that is I want to see all the bad reviews first, then make my own mind up whether its a spite review, an ignoramus review, or the truth. When one reads at the zero and one star level, one gets to the bottom of things damned fast ( pun? ). Also one needs to read the text carefully, as often one is reticent to ding a merchant but the product did not meet expectations.
I remember trying to review a magnifier assembly I bought... beautifully made little thing, but was absolutely useless as a magnifier. I know the merchant did not build the thing, and probably never used it... he, like I, likely saw a description of it and ordered some. I stated the same on the review... beautifully made little thing but useless as a magnifier.
Don't tell me someone is gonna come sue me over it... do I really have to bring this thing in front of the Judge and ask him to try to read anything through it?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by RaffArundel on Tuesday July 22 2014, @01:08PM
First, for me, is word of mouth and then reviews. The problem with online reviews is that most of them are amateurs and amateurish. As a result they typically only exist when someone is angry/venting about something or a fan[whatever]. There is also an issue with paid reviews and the haters. Like you, I look at the worst/lowest rated reviews and see if whatever they are bitching about would actually bother me.
I think the entire thing (especially special punishment for search engine placement) is stupid, since no one disputes the fact that she was there and got poor service. But I am reminded of the recent issue with "girl not being served because she was horribly scarred" which apparently turned out to be false and ultimately damaging to all involved. My concern is the definition of "harming another party" used to justify the emergency hearing and fining her. So, assuming she didn't spin the story, it is true and harms the restaurant, more so now - what happens to the blog post, the fine and the overall chilling effect it has on honest negative reviews?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday July 22 2014, @01:59PM
So far it has been safe to say whatever you want as long as it is true. If you lie then you can be challenged.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday July 22 2014, @07:18PM
Not exactly. Look up SLAAP suits.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday July 22 2014, @03:39PM
Our lawyers are expensive, too expensive unless you're in the 1%, and the 99% are rapidly becoming judgment proof. The legal system doesn't "work" for most american involvement. More or less on purpose. The judicial system only provides justice to the rich. So its simply not necessary.
Its far cheaper to hire 20 starving college students to write five star reviews claiming its the best thing ever than to have a lawyer spend an hour on a "problem".
(Score: 2, Informative) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday July 22 2014, @07:48AM
From TFA:
So is it a preliminary order until full trial OR case-closed order and she can appeal? Anyway, the part of "she did not have time to find legal representation" seems to me that she didn't mind the decision much anyway. Like mhajicek said above, Streisand effect would bash them a lot more. Plus a sudden surge in popularity for the defender.
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Tuesday July 22 2014, @11:26AM
the place to avoid in Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino
the place to avoid in Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino
the place to avoid in Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino