Putting up a negative review of a restaurant, store, business, etc.

I recall several years ago there was a law making it a crime to say/print/publish anything negative about someone. I recall this was first against newspaper reporters but then went to the general public.

Later I recall the criminal penalties were removed.

I know a lot of times a few years ago someone would tell about the poor service they got from (whoever) but wouldn't say who. Some people would ask and either were told the poster didn't want to say or ask in PM.

The question now is if I write a "bad" review of a restaurant, or say I had a terrible experience with "Jose" the plumber and he didn't know what he was doing, etc., and I write this, is that courting a legal problem?

I would think if you don't name-call or disparage someone, but just tell facts, it would be OK.

Anyone know anything here?

Thanks.

It is always OK to tell the provable truth......character assassination and unprovable innuendos are slanderous and probably subject to legal action. I thought you would know this given your legal background?

You'd think, wouldn't you.

You would think so especially considering that in addition to past vast legal experience there is his ongoing experience gained here suing various people. Now, he seems to have no idea how the law works.

Explanation.....

To maintain your self appointed title of clueless, you must introduce some mild form of drama to the board.

"Forever Clueless".......

CanuckBob wrote:It is always OK to tell the provable truth......character assassination and unprovable innuendos are slanderous and probably subject to legal action. I thought you would know this given your legal background?

Not really. You can be held accountable for a truthful statement about a person or entity if made maliciously or intentionally to cause harm to them or their reputation, "con dolo" as is described in Spanish.

So a newspaper can't report the facts if it could be harmful to a person's reputation or business????

CanuckBob wrote:So a newspaper can't report the facts if it could be harmful to a person's reputation or business????

Yes they can report facts. Read my post again. Dolo is the key word in the law. But if it is done maliciously or intentionally to harm the person or business then it can be considered libelous. If someone sues, the court will decide if it was done "con dolo" or "sin dolo".

Homocidio doloso is intentional murder while homocidio culposo is unintentional. Similar to murder in the first degree vs manslaughter. Malice aforethought vs unintentional. It comes down to intent.

So as an example it would be OK to post that a bank had 5 employees busted for fraud but not OK to also recommend that people never use them. Correct?

CanuckBob wrote:So as an example it would be OK to post that a bank had 5 employees busted for fraud but not OK to also recommend that people never use them. Correct?

I would say that is a fairly good way to explain it. I imagine the person suing would have to prove it was intended to harm the other party and that might not be real easy unless is is really blatant.

Also think.....facts (provable and witnessed) vs. opinions (or mind reading of a person's intent to harm).
Not much defense against verbal or published "chisme".

Another example would be, recounting a restaurant experience by saying no one took your order for 30 minutes, and it took 45 minutes for the food to appear, and you didn't enjoy the experience. Fine. But adding that the proprietor cares for nothing but money and ignores the experience of customers is making an assumption about character that goes beyond. (A review like this was recently pulled from Facebook). And I believe the legal change involved removing criminal penalities and making it a civil matter - i.e. you can be sued and will need a lawyer.

esga wrote:Another example would be, recounting a restaurant experience by saying no one took your order for 30 minutes, and it took 45 minutes for the food to appear, and you didn't enjoy the experience.  Fine.  But adding that the proprietor cares for nothing but money and ignores the experience of customers is making an assumption about character that goes beyond.  (A review like this was recently pulled from Facebook).  And I believe the legal change involved removing criminal penalities and making it a civil matter - i.e. you can be sued and will need a lawyer.

Excellent sorting. When I recount my restaurant experiences on the boards, I try to stick to "what happened" and reserve judgment about the proprietor, even though it's very, very obvious when he/she doesn't give a spit about customer satisfaction. How do I know how he really thinks? Probably just as well, eh?

There was example a while back of a woman in a Southern Mexico resort town who ordered an item of clothing in a specific size from a small shop. And she wanted it right away. The supplier didn't have the item in stock, so the store couldn't get it. They notified the woman, who proceeded to have a hissy fit. The store owner gave her the money back and offered a similar item at no extra cost. The woman proceeded to post a very defamatory Facebook review saying that the owner was incompetent and urging others not to shop there. The shop owner sued and won.

There is a woman posting on chapala dot com on a thread looking for cataract surgery recommendations eviserating a local doctor by name. She says he blinded her, all he cares about is money, selling eye drops he receives free, even calls him a MONSTER with all caps. She tells people do not go to him. She told one poster who recommended him not to ever go back as he was just lucky and could be blinded like she was. Her posts are text book examples of how to set yourself up for a libel lawsuit.

Lady Otter Latté wrote:There is a woman posting on chapala dot com on a thread looking for cataract surgery recommendations eviserating a local doctor by name. She says he blinded her, all he cares about is money, selling eye drops he receives free, even calls him a MONSTER with all caps. She tells people do not go to him. She told one poster who recommended him not to ever go back as he was just lucky and could be blinded like she was. Her posts are text book examples of how to set yourself up for a libel lawsuit.

Being blinded by a doctor will make you do irrational things.

Poor woman. I would never recommend him either based on my experience with him. I'm grateful for her post and I doubt it will last long so if you are someone who may want to have eye surgery or looking for a good eye doc go over and see it before they take it down.

The well known optometrist at the LCS did not go that far, but recommended that, DO NOT have eye cataract surgery done by local opthamologists but use one that was based in Guadalajara.
I read between the lines.

addtocart wrote:

Lady Otter Latté wrote:There is a woman posting on chapala dot com on a thread looking for cataract surgery recommendations eviserating a local doctor by name. She says he blinded her, all he cares about is money, selling eye drops he receives free, even calls him a MONSTER with all caps. She tells people do not go to him. She told one poster who recommended him not to ever go back as he was just lucky and could be blinded like she was. Her posts are text book examples of how to set yourself up for a libel lawsuit.

Being blinded by a doctor will make you do irrational things.

What I am saying is while you are free to assume everything that is posted is true just because someone said so, the courts do not work that way. She better have proof for everything she says. Also, some of the claims she is using in a clear case of attempting to ruin his business are impossible to prove. Again, she is leaving herself open to a law suit which could cost her a lot of money and years of her life in court.

The OP there wanted information by PM if names were to be named, but did some people listen? Nope. Finally, there was the defamatory post that sounds like a prepped package for a lawsuit.
What surprises me is that the mods didn't delete that one.

One of my dogs died due to Gross negligence/malpractice by a local Vet. She took out a Cancer tumor but nicked the tumor causing a cell "spill," this resulted in my dog dying a few months later. I have a copy of the report and even Dr. L. (we know him), said the nicking of the tumor was probably the cause of the Cancer spreading. The Vet clearly either knew nothing about clear/clean margins, or was just careless.

I tell and "promote" this story whenever I can; not out of malice per se, but to let people know so they can make an informed decision about what Vet to use.

Few things are worse than losing your "child," due to negligence. It is difficult also to make the decision to put the loved one "to sleep," when w/o the error, she would have had many more good years.

The tears still come.

Client/Patient/Consumer reviews are great help for many things. Just look at Trip Advisor.

I happen to be a friend of the Vet who's character you are maligning. "Deleted by Admin"


http://www.insidelakeside.com/t19-these-are-the-board-rules

ltollefs wrote:I happen to be a friend of the Vet who's character you are maligning. I also know who you are, and where you live. Tread very, very carefully.

Speaking of things that shouldn't be in print, this post sounds a lot like a threat !

A threat? Surely not. Merely being suggestive of the myriad potentialities that may ensue should PC continue his campaign of vitriol, the veracity of which, I contest.

"Clueless" starts a thread almost exactly one year ago and "Problem Child" revives it a year later.

The quest for knowledge is never ending.