![]() |
| Any food blogger worth his/her salt has to be careful and make sure their salty commentary doesn't cross the line. (Elisabetta Grondona photo via Creative Commons license) |
A Taiwanese blogger with a family name of Liu was sentenced to 30 days in jail, two years of probation and was ordered to pay roughly $6,900 in compensation to a restaurant owner (named Yang) over a review, according to The Daily Mail of London.
Three of her comments were the focus of the legal action:
- The beef noodles, which are supposed to be the specialty of the restaurant, were "too salty."
- The restaurant had cockroaches and was, therefore, unsanitary.
- She called the owner of the restaurant a "bully" because he allowed customers to park their cars "haphazardly" in the parking area, causing traffic jams.
According to the article, Taiwan's High Court, which heard the case on appeal from a lower court, found that Liu’s criticism about cockroaches and the parking situation at the restaurant was a narration of facts, not intentional slander.
The High Court's main objection, surprisingly, was that Liu painted too broad of a brush when she criticized the restaurant's "salty" cuisine because she only eaten only one meal and paid the restaurant only one visit before publishing her review.
All food bloggers — even ones in the U.S., where legal thresholds for libel and product disparagement are much higher — are one caustic comment away from a lawsuit. Without the deep pockets of a large newspaper or magazine paying the free-speech attorney fees, a blogger can face bankruptcy from even the most frivolous slander or libel suit.
Restauranteurs, and businesses in general, can worry just as much about what a blogger may say on the Internet about their product as they are about a review from a respected food writer in their local newspaper.
Blog posts can live on long after publication. Reviews in traditional media also are getting longer shelf lives online. Discovery, via the right search terms, is just a mouse click away. One can even find reviews easily for restaurants long since closed.
I discussed this story with several food and beverage bloggers. All said the court's decision was over-reaching. A restaurant review, whether on a blog post or in a high-revenue commercial publication, is understood to be simply a snapshot in time, the opinion of one person on one day at one meal. Readers understand that and take note accordingly.
In the U.S., a libel or product disparagement lawsuit can bring even far more attention to the unfavorable review than if it were allowed to go into obscurity. Marketing-savvy businesses simply post a rebuttal comment with the original review and let readers decide whether the review's conclusions are warranted. Bloggers and traditional publications worth reading — i.e., managed by staff mature enough to welcome criticism — will approve the rebuttal comments. (Print media often publish the rebuttals as letters to the editor.)
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution offers far more protection than the free speech codes of other countries, including South Korea. However, there still are lessons for American food bloggers to help avoid trouble.
- Take a lesson from reviewers of durable consumer products, such as electronics. Reviewers will contact the manufacturer with a list of complaints or problems and ask for clarification or help. Sometimes, the problem is the reviewer's, and sometimes it's a defect. In other words, if you suspect a problem with a dish or service, verify that the problem actually exists and wasn't a fluke (a tragic accident killed one of the staff, leaving them short-handed during the lunch or dinner rush) or a matter of personally preference (salt of spiciness sensitivity).
- During those visits, pick a different entree each time.
- If you can't go more than one time because of time or monetary restraints, invite a few of your family, friends or co-workers with you so you can sample more dishes and also get an opportunity to see how well they serve your larger table.
- Never, ever, forget your camera. If you witness health code violations or something illegal, such as cockroaches, rats or "recycling" of banchan, take photos at that moment.
- In the U.S., truth is an absolute defense against libel, although there is no defense against costly, fruitless legal battles.
- In other countries, such as South Korea, this may offer only limited protection. Some protection is better than none.
- Sometimes, the most appropriate venue to complain about health code violations is the local health department, rather than a paragraph in your food blog, accompanied with snarky adjectives and flowery prose. If the local agency takes action, then report on that action. At that point, it's part of the public record.
- Criticizing for an issue outside a restaurant's control, such as how badly their customers park their vehicles, may create cute quips, but it mostly fails to provide constructive criticism for the proprietor or decision-making direction to the potential patron. Perhaps, the restaurateur could take corrective curbside action, if the problem actually existed.
Koreans call a stingy person "salty" as in 넌 너무 짜 nuhn nuhmu jja, "You're too salty." This restaurant owner seems to be "too salty" because of his own over-reaction to the original blog post.
The Taiwanese court's decision to penalize this blogger so harshly for such a facile opinion has brought real disrepute on Taiwan, far more disrepute than Liu's blog post brought on Yang's noodle restaurant.
Food bloggers based in the People's Republic of China have more freedom of speech than their Taiwanese counterparts.
"… man and we thought our speech was limited over on the mainland…. We find this pretty frightening. God knows we at Shanghaiist have written more damning things than that a dish was too salty. We hate to think what would happen if we were called Taipeiist instead." —Tiffany Ap of Shanghaiist, commenting on the caseWhen people in the PRC have greater freedom of speech than the Taiwanese, that is a sad day for Taiwan's standing in the free world.

Fascinating article. I may need to do a better job of watching what i say! :) Buzzed
ReplyDeleteHi Tammy - Thank for sharing this. Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteOn TWTE I only write about our positive experiences for I do not want to contribute to a restaurant's troubles. I will certain say something to the management if things are not right.
I do appreciate reading others' critical reviews if they are fair.
Recycled banchan? Yuck.
LL
Thanks for sharing this article.
ReplyDelete@ Parsley. I don't want to be one to damper an Americans God-given right to free speech but we do have to protect ourselves a little bit.
ReplyDelete@ Lori Lynn, I chose my words carefully, too and try to accentuate the positive.
@ Mina, you're welcome. I hope many people find it helpful.
"Without the deep pockets of a large newspaper or magazine paying the free-speech attorney fees, a blogger can face bankruptcy from even the most frivolous slander or libel suit."
ReplyDeleteSorry, there is a lot of fearmongering here. I'd like to hear about one American blogger who went bankrupt from a "frivolous" libel suit. Just one!
The truth is this would never get to court.
A little more sanity, please.
@Anonymous, actually, I've underestimate the threat that libel or defamation lawsuits can pose to bloggers. There's no such thing as a cheap, inexpensive lawsuit.
ReplyDeletelet me give a few examples of some costly defamation lawsuits or libel lawsuits and you tell me if they're pocket change to you?!
Let's look at this story.
A Chicago woman named Amanda Bonnen sent out a little Twitter message that her apartment was moldy and the management company of her apartment building sued her for $50,000. I suppose your average blogger is supposed to have that kind of cash laying around to give up to some bruised ego, isn't she?!
Bonnen had 20 followers on Twitter and got slapped with this kind of lawsuit. I'm sure her attorney fees to defend against that are enormous.
And if she decided to roll over and capitulate to them, what chilling effect does that have on free speech that a person can't present their grievances publicly w/out being slapped with an expensive lawsuit.
Another example, in the UK, that has libel laws more in tune with Taiwan and Korea where truth is not a defense against libel is the example of Simon Singh, a science writer who was sued for libel by the Bristish Chiropractic Assocation. He lost two years of his life and 200,000 pounds in legal expenses fighting for his honor in court before the BCA dropped the suit.
Now, he'll probably get most of that back but what if he doesn't? Will he have to file for bankruptcy?
If I was looking at a $400,000 legal bill for defending my free speech rights, I'd certainly have to file for bankruptcy to get out from under it because I couldn't afford that expense, ever, and neither can most bloggers.
Are most libel suits thrown out of court in the US? Of course, but by the time your case gets to the judge to get thrown out, you will have already paid out thousands of dollars in attorney fees, unless you had convinced the ACLU to defend you pro bono.
Alan Dershowitz, one of America's best known lawyers, told the Guardian UK, "Though most defamation claims are deemed baseless by US courts, the enormous cost a lawsuit imposes and the smear of bigotry it achieves has stifled legitimate discussion of some suspect behaviour. Litigation – and the threat of litigation – has prevented concerned citizens from speaking freely and stopped the publication of important information....A 2004 survey by the American Society of Journalists and Authors found that about 70% of freelance writers earn less than $50,000 annually. It is not surprising then that some would silence themselves, calculating that the personal cost of a lawsuit outweighs the need to inform the public. It is also impossible to know how many threats of a lawsuit have led to self-censorship or inappropriate retractions by writers who fear that their writing, while protected as free speech, will land them in court."
This post was written in an effort to help my fellow bloggers cross their t's and dot their i's in regards to their food reviews to strike that balance between protecting themselves from frivolous lawsuits yet continuing to speak out when necessary. It's sad that I even have to write an article like this, because in a sense, I am recommending that bloggers pull their punches a bit, which they shouldn't have to do in a truly free society.
I don't think our concern is "fear mongering" at all. As a matter of fact, based on recent examples of people being sued over their Twitter comments, which are much shorter and inconsequential than a lengthy, well-research article or blog post, I've probably underestimated how much of a threat the average blogger faces when he or she steps out and says something about someone they might not like.
That's rough! Heaven help if people in general started suing for "too salty".
ReplyDeleteSorry Tammy, Amanda's case was thrown out:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_Group_v._Bonnen
So, the threat to American bloggers for "salty language" remains at zero.
Better advice for your readers would be to tell the truth when they write. The truth is defendable and protected by American law. What's the use of having a blog if your not going to tell the truth?
Look at it this way: if, as you claim, only big newspapers and magazines have the money and legal teams to protect their rights, then why would I ever want to read the writings of a blogger who can only write good things about restaurants?
Clearly, I'd rather read the truth in a restaurant review. Which, according to you, can only be found in newspapers and magazines.
And I expect this comment to be deleted, like all the others I write here that challenge your opinions have been deleted. Interestingly, when I challenge the Washington Post in the comments on their website, they let it stand.
Imagine that!
@ Anonymous, you seem to think that if a case gets thrown out by a judge that it didn't really cost the blogger any time, money or grief and therefore bloggers face no real threat of getting sued?! That makes no sense at all. Although the case was thrown out, how much $$ did Bonnen and her legal team have to spend defending the case before the judge threw it out?!
ReplyDeleteApparently you didn't read this post as well as you might want people to think you did. As I said in the post above, "In the U.S., truth is an absolute defense against libel, although there is no defense against costly, fruitless legal battles."
As I also pointed out in this article, bloggers in countries such as the UK, South Korea and Taiwan *do not* have this level of protection. Truth is not a defense against libel in most countries so you have to do a little bit more than "tell the truth" to defend yourself from a costly lawsuit.
Calling someone's beef noodles "salty" is not an objective truth statement, it's a matter of opinion, unless you get out one of those fancy Korean salt testers and tests the noodles first. This pie-in-the-sky fantasy you have that just because American bloggers have certain rights under American law that those rights extend to non-American bloggers (which they don't) or even extend to American bloggers without a fight from time to time is illogical. Ms. Bonnen still had to go to court, and spend lots of her time and money just to get the bogus case against her thrown out.
For example, I never said that the only place to find the truth was in a newspaper or magazine. If anything, the only advantage they have over a blog is a large pot of money to come to their aid and succor if some blowhard restauranteur with an ax to grind and a reputation to protect decides to sue them.
Bloggers, American or Korean, who know they have no one to protect them but themselves will go the extra mile and make sure their review is fair to the restaurant and to their own integrity.
I haven't deleted a single one of your comments on this thread so far, but if you keep putting words in my mouth I never said, I might have to start. Or maybe I should start a policy where cowardly "anonymous" posters comments are deleted. After all, since I am willing to stand behind my comments, so should you, right?