Oct 15, 2007
In a frightening case that threatens the existence of travel guides, a Sydney jury has found a writer guilty of defaming a local restaurant
Though it hasn't yet been noticed by U.S. publications, it's a terrifying development that denies the right of a travel journalist to compose an honest opinion about restaurants, hotels, and other tourist facilities. A restaurant in Sydney, whose meals were said to be unpalatable by a newspaper restaurant critic who had taken two meals there, the restaurant having later closed, sued the critic's newspaper for defamation and won a jury verdict. Prior to the trial, the courts of Australia had upheld the right of the restaurant's owners to maintain such an unusual lawsuit.
No one denied that the restaurant critic had eaten there twice. No one claimed that he had an ulterior or improper motive for criticizing the restaurant's meals. Yet an Australian jury found him guilty for rendering an honest opinion.
I am virtually certain that the courts of America would throw out any such lawsuit. Or would they? Too many of us take the right of free speech for granted, and the casual way in which important elements of the Australian society have trampled on free speech rights in this instance is a horrendous development, and one that would find plenty of extremist supporters here. Imagine the state of our newspapers, magazines and guidebooks if we could not criticize a restaurant, hotel, movie or book for fear of being sued for libel over honest criticism.
I think it's important for us to let the Australians know that the world is watching, to provoke opinion leaders in that country to confront the implications of this weird, totalitarian ruling. If you know an Australian, or if you meet an Australian traveling in the United States, shouldn't you let that person know of the horror we feel?
A full write-up of the court's decision is found on the Sydney Morning Herald's website, while this link includes a timeline and breakdown of the case by a legal consulting firm. The Guardian covers the lack of a free speech here.
A somewhat similar lawsuit is currently pending in the courts of Philadelphia, brought by a disgruntled restaurateur against a food critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer who had written that he had been served "a miserably tough and fatty strip steak. The crab cake, though, was excellent." We should all pray that the case will be decisively dismissed, with costs assessed against the restaurateur; otherwise, we'll all suffer the eventual disappearance of critical reviews in our press.
Write and read comments about this post.
No one denied that the restaurant critic had eaten there twice. No one claimed that he had an ulterior or improper motive for criticizing the restaurant's meals. Yet an Australian jury found him guilty for rendering an honest opinion.
I am virtually certain that the courts of America would throw out any such lawsuit. Or would they? Too many of us take the right of free speech for granted, and the casual way in which important elements of the Australian society have trampled on free speech rights in this instance is a horrendous development, and one that would find plenty of extremist supporters here. Imagine the state of our newspapers, magazines and guidebooks if we could not criticize a restaurant, hotel, movie or book for fear of being sued for libel over honest criticism.
I think it's important for us to let the Australians know that the world is watching, to provoke opinion leaders in that country to confront the implications of this weird, totalitarian ruling. If you know an Australian, or if you meet an Australian traveling in the United States, shouldn't you let that person know of the horror we feel?
A full write-up of the court's decision is found on the Sydney Morning Herald's website, while this link includes a timeline and breakdown of the case by a legal consulting firm. The Guardian covers the lack of a free speech here.
A somewhat similar lawsuit is currently pending in the courts of Philadelphia, brought by a disgruntled restaurateur against a food critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer who had written that he had been served "a miserably tough and fatty strip steak. The crab cake, though, was excellent." We should all pray that the case will be decisively dismissed, with costs assessed against the restaurateur; otherwise, we'll all suffer the eventual disappearance of critical reviews in our press.
Write and read comments about this post.
Fifty years ago, 
Arthur Frommer is generally acknowledged to be the nation's foremost travel authority. He is the founder of the
