Mar 11, 2008
The opponents of free speech in travel writing have been slapped down by a court in Belfast, Northern Ireland
Several months ago, I drew attention to a jury verdict in Australia that had found a newspaper journalist guilty of having defamed a local restaurant by writing a critical review of its food. Though at first glance the matter might have seemed comical, the possibility that courts might entertain such lawsuits by hotels and restaurants poses a grave threat to travel journalism. If more similar lawsuits are permitted, there will soon be an end to the critical appraisal of travel facilities in guidebooks, newspapers, and magazines.
As amazing as it may seem, there appear to be no specific constitutional guarantees of free speech in Australia. And though it seems inconceivable that our own courts would permit such lawsuits, it's obvious that in a great many jurisdictions all over the world, no free-speech protections prevail. The possibility that a foreign court may find a writer guilty of defaming a hotel or restaurant in an honest expression of views will prevent honestly written guidebooks from being published in the United States, since most such guidebooks are also circulated overseas.
That's why it's heartening to report that last week, a court in Belfast, Northern Ireland, threw out a lawsuit brought by a restaurant against a newspaper critic who had panned the restaurant's meals. The details are found on www.breitbart.com.
Nevertheless, we all need to remain vigilant against such threats to the honest expression of opinions. You may be interested in one of my own experiences in the world of guidebook-writing:
More than 30 years ago, I was criminally indicted in the courts of Athens, Greece, for having written, in our guidebook to Greece, that the local English-speaking newspaper of Athens, at that time, was "practically worthless." Those two words resulted in a heavy package of legal documents mailed to my home in New York, proclaiming that I was to present myself to a court in Athens to answer charges of criminal libel.
When I called an Athens lawyer to ask what I should do, he responded that I should come to Athens and defend myself.
"But if I come to Athens to defend myself and I lose", I said, "I will be imprisoned." "Oh, chances are you won't lose," he responded.
After making fruitless visits to the Greek embassy in Washington, D.C. (whose officials were too frightened to intervene, this being a period when military colonels had seized power in Greece), and making similar pleas for help to the frightened tourist officials of Greece, all to no avail, I finally and reluctantly settled the case for a small payment, so that I could continue to travel to Greece.
And by the way, that newspaper was "practically worthless."
Write and read comments about this post.
As amazing as it may seem, there appear to be no specific constitutional guarantees of free speech in Australia. And though it seems inconceivable that our own courts would permit such lawsuits, it's obvious that in a great many jurisdictions all over the world, no free-speech protections prevail. The possibility that a foreign court may find a writer guilty of defaming a hotel or restaurant in an honest expression of views will prevent honestly written guidebooks from being published in the United States, since most such guidebooks are also circulated overseas.
That's why it's heartening to report that last week, a court in Belfast, Northern Ireland, threw out a lawsuit brought by a restaurant against a newspaper critic who had panned the restaurant's meals. The details are found on www.breitbart.com.
Nevertheless, we all need to remain vigilant against such threats to the honest expression of opinions. You may be interested in one of my own experiences in the world of guidebook-writing:
More than 30 years ago, I was criminally indicted in the courts of Athens, Greece, for having written, in our guidebook to Greece, that the local English-speaking newspaper of Athens, at that time, was "practically worthless." Those two words resulted in a heavy package of legal documents mailed to my home in New York, proclaiming that I was to present myself to a court in Athens to answer charges of criminal libel.
When I called an Athens lawyer to ask what I should do, he responded that I should come to Athens and defend myself.
"But if I come to Athens to defend myself and I lose", I said, "I will be imprisoned." "Oh, chances are you won't lose," he responded.
After making fruitless visits to the Greek embassy in Washington, D.C. (whose officials were too frightened to intervene, this being a period when military colonels had seized power in Greece), and making similar pleas for help to the frightened tourist officials of Greece, all to no avail, I finally and reluctantly settled the case for a small payment, so that I could continue to travel to Greece.
And by the way, that newspaper was "practically worthless."
Write and read comments about this post.
Dec 14, 2007
The New York Times has just published the most outrageous essay in recent history of travel journalism
The article I'm referring to filled the entire first page of last weekend's New York Times travel section, and then spread out over part of seven more pages. Its headline read: "The 53 Places to Go in 2008." But instead of citing culture, history, natural wonders, political interest, or interaction with people, as the primary reason for its 53 geographical choices, it clearly implied that the arrival of upscale deluxe hotels was the main reason for visiting most of its nominees.
In no fewer than 34 of the 43 destinations listed in its printed travel section (the other 10 appeared online), luxury living was singled out as the obvious draw of the destination. The words "luxury," "upscale," "high end," "Ritz-Carlton," "lavish," "well-heeled," "ultra-exclusive," "high ticket," "chic," "upper class," "posh," "opulent," and the like, appear either repeatedly ("luxury" and "luxurious" are big favorites) or at least once in the great majority of write-ups; and the more noble goals of travel, a learning experience that expands understanding, are mainly dismissed in favor of the pleasures of discos and designer hotels.
If you, like many, are not interested in ultra-costly hotels, is there anything for you to read in the travel section of The New York Times? Precious little. I wonder whether any major editor of the Times scans those pages or is even faintly aware of what that section has become. As someone with a regard for travel, who looks upon travel as a precious birthright of our generation, I want to protest against what a new team of mindless poseurs have done to the once-esteemed travel pages of our leading newspaper.
Write and read comments about this post.
- St. Lucia? You go there because "big-name resorts with $1,000 rooms are on the way."
- Verbier, in Switzerland? It "will get decidedly more upper class" when Richard Branson's latest chalet-hotel opens, charging "as little as £35,250 a week, well over $70,000."
- Courchevel in the French Alps? Developers are upping the ante with "rustic-chic apartments starting at ... $1.95 million."
In no fewer than 34 of the 43 destinations listed in its printed travel section (the other 10 appeared online), luxury living was singled out as the obvious draw of the destination. The words "luxury," "upscale," "high end," "Ritz-Carlton," "lavish," "well-heeled," "ultra-exclusive," "high ticket," "chic," "upper class," "posh," "opulent," and the like, appear either repeatedly ("luxury" and "luxurious" are big favorites) or at least once in the great majority of write-ups; and the more noble goals of travel, a learning experience that expands understanding, are mainly dismissed in favor of the pleasures of discos and designer hotels.
If you, like many, are not interested in ultra-costly hotels, is there anything for you to read in the travel section of The New York Times? Precious little. I wonder whether any major editor of the Times scans those pages or is even faintly aware of what that section has become. As someone with a regard for travel, who looks upon travel as a precious birthright of our generation, I want to protest against what a new team of mindless poseurs have done to the once-esteemed travel pages of our leading newspaper.
Write and read comments about this post.
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
