Comments on: Northern Ireland: jury awards £25K for bad restaurant review

By: Lizard

Lizard — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:52:01 +0000

Wow – before the suit, nobody knew that “Goodfellas” was a dump. Now the whole world knows. Nice going; now do they need a “you’re too stupid warning” label on the gun as they shoot into their foot?

-Gary

By: Amsterdamsky

Amsterdamsky — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:36:04 +0000

The reality of free speech in europe is that you are only allowed to say things that don’t offend anybody. Thank “G-d” for Theo van Gogh getting the Netherlands beyond that although some 14 year old kids were recently arrested and jailed for giving the Nazi (Roman in reality) salute. Still things are better now.

By: J.T. Wenting

J.T. Wenting — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 02:22:57 +0000

I must say I’ve got mixed feelings about this.
I’m both thrilled that a journalist has finally been slapped by the courts for his behaviour, but I’m also deeply worried about the possible implications to free speech that this brings (if anyone can be succefully sued for saying something that anyone else doesn’t like, where does it end?).

By: Phaedrus

Phaedrus — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:37:17 +0000

“You really cannot overstate the imbecility of a libel jury”? Does this mean that the jury can sue him for libel now?

Oh, and Supremacy Claus: “Truth is an absolute defense to libel” is far from a universal legal principle. In many countries (especially countries with legal systems based on the UK’s), you can be convicted of libel essentially for telling the truth in a hurtful way.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:40:50 +0000

Truth is a defense. Shouldn’t the jurors or the judge have been forced to anonymously eat at this dump, to order a cola/chicken marsala combo platter, perhaps to ask the staff to take back an item, to see the result?