Here’s the house band
Australian food critics were left spluttering into their napkins yesterday after a court decided that an unfavourable review of a Sydney restaurant was defamatory, opening the way for the owners to claim damages. The critics said the decision could lead to reviewers of theatre, music, literature and art fearing to speak their minds in case they are sued.
The case centres on a review of Coco Roco restaurant published in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper in 2003. Matthew Evans, then the newspaper’s chief food critic, dined at the restaurant twice and was not impressed. He said the flavour of oysters soaked in limoncello “jangled like a car crash” and that a sherry scented apricot white sauce that accompanied steak was a “wretched garnish” that he scraped off.
Awarding the restaurant nine points out of 20, he concluded that “more than half the dishes I’ve tried at Coco Roco are simply unpalatable”, and that the food was overpriced.
Coco Roco closed three months after the review and the owners, who had spent more than $2.5million refitting the restaurant, blamed it on the reviewer, saying that customers had been put off by Evans’ words.
I realize we’re dealing with courts in Australia’s often “unique” legal system. But, is there any sense of what a ruling might mean outside the case in question? After all, precedence is what Western jurisprudence is supposed to be all about.
Well, the case would have to be read along with Australian statutes?
Would we all agree that if there was any proveable personal bias that ruining a business for invalid reasons should be actionable?
Otherwise, freedom of speech should give wide leeway to matters of opinion—then choose your critics carefully.
I think that if the food was that bad that they closed down within three months, they had worse going for them than a bad review. I just can’t see a sherry/apricot sauce going well on top of beef. Chicken or shellfish, maybe, but not beef.
So the guy writes up his opinion of the food, and to be honest, most people don’t look at reviews anyways, and enough people go there, find out for themselves the food is bad, and tell their friends not to go. Place closes.
As for the lead question here, does this set a bad precedent? Hell yes. The whole reason reviews negative reviews are not considered defamatory (normally) is:
A: It’s an opinion.
B: It can be a public service to warn people with a limited budget when a place/album/movie/play etc. is not worth spending money on.
C: There may be mitigating positives to offset the negative aspects of the review.
Some people (like the sue-happy restaurateurs) need to learn to take criticism and use it to improve their work, not use it as a crutch after failing because they didn’t bother to fix their menu after the review.
Actually the folks in the pic were the house band until an obese lady sued them for the trauma induced by their rendition of “Big Bottom”.
This court ruling is retarded. It defeats the entire purpose of reviews. Will they sue me for defamation for saying that?
#4
Maybe because food critics often talk like Dennis Miller and use way too abstract words to explain something as simple as “it’s too salty.”
#5 – Why blame the reviewer for the fact that the average person can’t read over an eighth grade level?
This holding up of “plain spoken” as some sort of paragon of virtue is what has given us The Bush Administration. I see no virtue in dumbing things down.
Remember the Alar health scare. It was a chemical sprayed on apples reported by 60 Minutes as a carcinogen specially dangerous to children.
Florida quickly passed a law making it criminal to similarly report such stories (or spread negative rumors) about Florida products.
Whatever might be in that Florida orange juice or Florida strawberry pie is good until proven otherwise.
It takes many many years to prove something is harmful. The jury was out for half a century on cigarettes. Had we been growing tobacco in Florida after enactment of this law, you’d have gone to jail as a felon for reporting a possible link of cancer to tobacco.
Paraphrased, “precedence is what Western jurisprudence is supposed to be all about”, is why the case will likely be subject to appeal.
Australian Law is very similar to UK law, mainly some local quirks, and that being the case, appeal is not as easy an affair as in this country. While we almost expect an appeal, and it’s usually granted, the British(and thus the Commonwealth) position on appeals isn’t so clear cut.
Not knowing some of those local quirks I mentioned, I can’t say if an appeal is possible. 🙂
#6
But so does talking in riddles like Jesus just to pretend you’re smart. You can speak your heart without acting like Dennis Miller and give cryptic comparisons that no one understands.
#5 & 10,
well said Angel, I agree.
***
Apparently this case has already been to trial before a jury who agreed that although the review did say the food was “unpalatable” and the “service was bad”, they were not defamatory. Unhappy with that decision, the owners appealed.
In that quaint British style justice system, a Court of Appeals is allowed to overrule a jury and impose their own punishment. That is what they did here. The Court of Appeals decided the jury had the evidence wrong and the comments were defamatory.
The issue is that we don’t have a right to free speech down under by either constitutional mandate or positive legislation. We have (mostly) free speech because the government/judiciary hasn’t removed it yet.
#7 – Your Florida comment demonstrates a guiding principle of American legislation… “It’s okay to fuck the average citizen, as long as you don’t fuck the rich.”
#10 – Who is acting like Dennis Miller… And who (that’s worth talking to) doesn’t understand Dennis Miller.
Everyone gets an education. If you don’t take the one that’s offered then you deserve to look bewildered when grown ups are using big words. Being dumb is a choice. Choose carefully.
#13, OFTLO,
Dennis Miller always leaves me with the feeling he just likes the sound of his own voice. He needs a new writer.
Your cup of tea, fine. But definitely not mine.
#14 – He was my cup of tea in the old days… He was funny then… Biting and raw. Now he’s had a political conversion, his edge has dulled, and he’s just not all that funny.
Though he’s still smart as a whip. And he is a writer. Good comics all are.
#13
Oh I do have an Education, more than enough to know that aussie food critic talks like a pompous ass just because that’s how dumb rich folk believe “intellectuals” are supposed to talk that way. And for the same reason you see so many amorphous lumps of clay being praised in Germany as modern art.
I’m way too cynical for the use of complex words used just for the sole reason of showing off a vocabulary.