Australian Court Wipes Out Restaurant Reviewers

[ethics]

I can't believe this! A court in Australia has ruled that a critic's unflattering review of a restaurant in a Sydney newspaper constituted defamation (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/curtain-lowered-on-age-of-fearless-food-critic/2007/06/14/1181414469662.html) and that the critic may now be responsible for damages!!!

Good God, we've been bashing laws here and then Aussies just come out with one to rule them all! I mean, this opens up so many cans of not just worms but Anthrax laden caterpillars.

[cdw]

It ain't over though...it gets bounced to a higher court. You sure the court that made the decision isn't in California?

[ethics]

I checked, twice. :)

Where is this world going, btw?

[Copzilla]

I'd be interested in seeing a more detailed account of the trial. Because I'll bet there's a lot of information we're not seeing here.

[ditch]

I suppose the restaurant reviewer is as unhappy about the court's assessment of him as the restaurant was about the reviewer's assessment of them. Can't a reviewer be reviewed?

If there are going are to be defamation laws I don't have any problem for them applying to cases such as this one. Why should reviewers be exempt? In fact there are several who need to be bought down a peg or too. Those who delight in the power they have to make or break a restaurant, play, movie or whatever often roll in their power with arrogance, pomposity and conceit like pigs in mud. On the occasions where their arrogance gets the better of them, they deserve a kick in the guts themselves. If they can't take it they shouldn't give it out to begin with. Anybody can wrap themselves in the cloak of a reviewer and say what they damn well like. Not always though, according to this court.

I'd like to read the original review.

[ditch]

Here's the full review. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/coco-roco/2007/06/14/1181414470329.html)

To me, the review was written by a smart arse, taking delight in a clever choice of words and phrase to put his victim to the sword. Whether defamation is the result is another matter. If the food was no good the public would have voted with their feet anyway. While you can't stop reviewers writing what they will, generally they can be a bunch of holier than thou smart arses. If I owned a food house of any type and had one in for a meal I'd be extremely hopeful that they got out of bed on the right side before eating. Otherwise, they find the nearest thing to kick and that is usually the chef.

[SixofNine]

When the case first went to court, a jury agreed that the review had conveyed imputations that Coco Roco served unpalatable food and gave bad service, but the jury did not find it was defamatory.

That's my take on it. The reviewer actually had some good things to say, too, at least about the steak.

[ditch]

It certainly isn't the worst review I've seen by a long way. I guess I just don't like a smart arse put down of anything, film or restaurant or whatever. But this was pretty tame as far as reviews go and I'm surprised the defamation case won the day.

[Sacchiridites]

...Where is this world going, btw?

*giggles* That's a loaded question, ethics.

Well, I would wager that it was a personal thang somewhere, like Copzilla said...something else behind the scenes we're not seeing. Ego happens.

Cie :)

[ditch]

Maybe to begin with, but this thing went to the highest court in the country...The High Court. :crazy:

[Violet1966]

Restaurant reviewers really aren't all that powerful unless they are given that power by the people who read them. It would seem the restaurant owner should have more of a problem with the people who read his reviews and take them as fact, instead of just asking someone without such power who's eaten there already, how the food was.

[ditch]

The only widely circulated appraisal is that of the reviewer. Unless you have a friend who you can ask or are able to ask someone as they leave the premises, then it is the published article that gets the attention and wields the influence. Too much influence IMO but people believe what they choose to and the restauranteurs live and die by what reviewers write.

Sometimes you just have to ignore what the reviewers say and eat what tastes good. Vegemite is a good example.:biggrin:

[Violet1966]

If this is such a problem there, then it might be a good thing for someone to start a restaurant input forum where everyday people talk about their own experiences.

I wonder what we Americans eat that is similar in taste to vegemite? LOL

[MNeedham73]

I wonder what we Americans eat that is similar in taste to vegemite? LOL

Absolutely nothing LOL.

[ditch]

We also eat other very similar spreads such as Marmite, which is British, and Promite, my favourite, but Vegemite is the most popular.

But the reviewer is not a problem here any more than they are elsewhere I would have thought. This example is very unusual although not the first case that has gone to court.