Food for thought: online harrassment

[Art Mann]

In case you haven't already stumbled across this story in today's Star, you'll find it raises interesting points about internet behaviour.

Ottawa restaurateur guilty of defaming reviewer

Elayna Katz made it perfectly clear to the waiter that she didn’t want olives on her pasta. But that’s what she got. And peas and celery were substituted for asparagus on another dish. Plus the service was slow.

The final straw came when the waiter asked her to pay for two entrées, including a dish she’d returned.

Soon after, Katz, 42, posted two negative reviews on — the first time she’d ever written an online review — about her unsatisfactory dining experience at Mambo Nuevo Latino restaurant in Ottawa’s ByWard Market.

That should have been the end of it. Instead, Mambo’s 41-year-old owner Marisol Simoes retaliated by unleashing a two-year campaign to humiliate the reviewer by depicting her as a lonely, unstable, sexually insatiable transsexual. Eventually, though not sufficiently soon for Katz to avoid embarrassment, Ottawa police charged Simoes under Canada’s rarely used criminal defamation laws.

Last month she was found guilty of two counts of libel in an Ottawa courtroom and will be sentenced Nov. 8. She faces up to five years in prison.

It is a case that captured worldwide attention because it has revealed the darker side of online reviewing and the revenge scenarios that it can prompt. Indeed, some academics are concerned online revenge tactics may become more common as the Internet insinuates itself into the fabric of our culture and allows individuals to act on impulses with apparent impunity.





READ FULL STORY HERE

 

[Al Bumin]

I better stop writing reviews on line.

 

[Dan]

I'm glad she got charged and I'm sure there will be a civil suit launched as well.

 

[Cooldaddy]

The internet has become the next "Lawyer proof to sue".

 

[God]

You do have to wonder the logistics of reviews on line. Imagine your competitor registering fake email accounts and handles to bash you in any kind of business.

How can one stop that?.

 

[tboy]

You do have to wonder the logistics of reviews on line. Imagine your competitor registering fake email accounts and handles to bash you in any kind of business.

How can one stop that?.

Not just fake bad reviews, but fake good ones too. I didn't read the whole article but last week or so there was a story online about how companies are paying people to post reviews of their products. For example: a company wants to introduce a new phone.....they pay people to go out and post reviews on sites where you can purchase the phone, then go to chat rooms associated with technology and hype up the new product....

Just about every online purchasing site now has "read the reviews" or "be the first to post a review"....areas when you're looking at a product.

Just another way to corrupt what could have been a good thing.

As for the story, I hope the restauranteur loses her business.....if she was SO concerned about receiving a bad review, she should have firstly ensured her customers were being treated with the utmost courtesy and were proveded exemplary service....but why do that when you can just bash bad reviews?

If I was the owner, and saw the bad review, I'd contact that person and offer them a free meal to show them that it was a rare occurance....

 

[-b]

So has the internet helped or has it cause more issues than ever......

I guess you need to take the Good with the Bad.....

 

[RAWD]

Multiply that by 1,000,000 and you have the Toronto industry review board scene.

 

[Madman]

Social media in general is being used for business purpose. I was at the car dealership yesterday waiting for my car. I couldn't help over hear a gentleman selling his services to a young lady. He was a face book specialist. He was telling her how he was going to set up her face book page. People don't care about the individual but are drawn to an individuals lifestyle was his line. He was going to create a facebook page and engage people with a lifestyle presentation that draws people in,then she eventually sells them her mortgage services.

It's not the same as a review but more so paying people to create an image by writing fake reviews. It's all shilling and it's wrong!

 

[Coxwell]

For the restaurant owner to be convicted of libel, would the victim have to prove she wasn't a lonely unstable sexually insatiable transsexual? Suppose 3 out of 4 labels were indeed correct, should the owner get a lesser sentence?
Just wondering. :blush2:

 

[Art Mann]

I won't pretend to be an expert on libel laws, but I suspect the critic/victim's lawyer would bring this issue into play:

Pretending to be Katz, Simoes dispatched a series of highly sexualized e-mails to Katz’s bosses — the CEO and 75 directors at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities — where Katz works in human resources. In her emails impersonating Katz, Simoes declared the reviewer was “a tiger in the bedroom,” adding that she was transgendered and liked threesomes and group sex. Then she set up a dating profile on an adult website in the “men seeking men” category using Katz’s name. It, too, contained lewd declarations.

There may also be issues of forgery or impersonation, but strikes me that libel, slander and character defamation would be key issues.

 

[HOF]

Not just fake bad reviews, but fake good ones too. I didn't read the whole article but last week or so there was a story online about how companies are paying people to post reviews of their products. For example: a company wants to introduce a new phone.....they pay people to go out and post reviews on sites where you can purchase the phone, then go to chat rooms associated with technology and hype up the new product....

Just about every online purchasing site now has "read the reviews" or "be the first to post a review"....areas when you're looking at a product.

Just another way to corrupt what could have been a good thing.

As for the story, I hope the restauranteur loses her business.....if she was SO concerned about receiving a bad review, she should have firstly ensured her customers were being treated with the utmost courtesy and were proveded exemplary service....but why do that when you can just bash bad reviews?

If I was the owner, and saw the bad review, I'd contact that person and offer them a free meal to show them that it was a rare occurance....

No way, you don't say, it must be a lie!:biggrin2:

I would do the same. If I were the reviewer, I'd talk to the owner prior to submitting the review.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

For the restaurant owner to be convicted of libel, would the victim have to prove she wasn't a lonely unstable sexually insatiable transsexual? Suppose 3 out of 4 labels were indeed correct, should the owner get a lesser sentence?
Just wondering. :blush2:

For the victim to sue successfully she had to prove that the restaurant owner knew what she posted was wrong and would damage her reputation. Furthermore, she had to prove that the restaurant owner did it intentionally TO damage her reputation. Libel is very difficult to prove.

As someone who has been through this before in a professional environment of work I will break it down for you by using a simple example.

"MADMAN IS A LITTLE STRANGE AND AT TIMES LOVES SMALL ANIMALS IN WAYS THAT SHOULDN'T BE PERMITTED."

1. My comments are not libelous if it's directed at a "character" or "persona" such as Madman. They must be directed at an actual human being.
2. My comments are not libelous if I honestly believe them to be true. This is the tricky part that most defendants use in such cases. They honestly believe their comments were true or truthful.
3. My comments are not libelous if if they do not affect his "reputation" and by that it must be a well known reputation publicly and not a perceived one by Madman.
4. For my comments to be libelous I have to understand that what I said was not true and that I'm doing it deliberately to hurt Madman's reputation. Again this is up to the accuser to prove because I can see that I thought my comments were truthful and it was never my intention to harm his reputation but rather save unsuspecting animals a horrible fate.

Having said all that not too long ago a well know Ottawa escort successfully sued in court an online character well known around the Toronto boards for damaging her reputation by slanderous comments. She successfully obtained an apology and his name was added to the Bad Clients list by SPOC.

 

[HOF]

Would you folks please stop on-line harrassing me!!!:biggrin2:

 

[Art Mann]

For the victim to sue successfully she had to prove that the restaurant owner knew what she posted was wrong and would damage her reputation. Furthermore, she had to prove that the restaurant owner did it intentionally TO damage her reputation. Libel is very difficult to prove.

In view of the "revenge campaign" by the restaurateur, the critic/victim shouldn't have much trouble proving that a "reasonable person" would know it's wrong to impersonate the victim through email to the victim's bosses and to advertise the victim in first person on a sex-for-rent forum (apart from any tranny issues).

As to the issue of whether someone honestly believes their comments are true or truthful, any professional restaurant critic (as opposed to wannabe critics posting on the internet) will be well aware of legal precedent in libel suits related to dining critique.

The most common example in case law is this (too lazy to look it up, but trust me big bucks were paid):

Critic complains that the scallop potatoes "were sadly from a premix box." Restaurant sues, critic loses, because chef actually cuts real potatoes, even though his recipe may be bland.

Ergo, professional dining critics use phrases like "scallop potatoes tasted like they came from a premix box" or "scallop potatoes seem to be premix."

To put that in terminology more relevant to an escort review board:

Cardinal Fang seems to have a small penis. Go ahead, sue me.:biggrin2:

 

[God]

In view of the "revenge campaign" by the restaurateur, the critic/victim shouldn't have much trouble proving that a "reasonable person" would know it's wrong to impersonate the victim through email to the victim's bosses and to advertise the victim in first person on a sex-for-rent forum (apart from any tranny issues).

As to the issue of whether someone honestly believes their comments are true or truthful, any professional restaurant critic (as opposed to wannabe critics posting on the internet) will be well aware of legal precedent in libel suits related to dining critique.

The most common example in case law is this (too lazy to look it up, but trust me big bucks were paid):

Critic complains that the scallop potatoes "were sadly from a premix box." Restaurant sues, critic loses, because chef actually cuts real potatoes, even though his recipe may be bland.

Ergo, professional dining critics use phrases like "scallop potatoes tasted like they came from a premix box" or "scallop potatoes seem to be premix."

To put that in terminology more relevant to an escort review board:

Cardinal Fang seems to have a small penis. Go ahead, sue me.:biggrin2:

One dude in Australia won $80,000.



Another in Dallas is pending.

https://www.writerswrite.com/blog/8340402

 

[Sophia Sinclair]

"MADMAN IS A LITTLE STRANGE AND AT TIMES LOVES SMALL ANIMALS IN WAYS THAT SHOULDN'T BE PERMITTED."

 

[HoneyBee]

Ergo, professional dining critics use phrases like "scallop potatoes tasted like they came from a premix box" or "scallop potatoes seem to be premix."

To put that in terminology more relevant to an escort review board:

Cardinal Fang seems to have a small penis. Go ahead, sue me.:biggrin2:

Cardinal Fag has a small penis. <<< is safe to say because it's a fictional character :YMDEVIL:

 

[MUSE]

This is a fascinating story. Let's hope the more people that get caught/held accountable, the less cyber bullying & slander happen. People think they are invincible. But the truth is they aren't. With enough reason authorities will look into who is behind what. And accountability should just be the beginning.

 

[Transient]

Unfortunately, whenever there is the ability for free exchange of ideas, asshats are going to abuse it. We have to take the good with the bad, the trick is having a non-invasive method of monitoring for the extreme cases.