Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz From: ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) Newsgroups: ih.eats,net.consumers,net.legal Subject: Re: Old Peking again ... Message-ID: <695@ihuxx.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Mar-84 15:30:01 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxx.695 Posted: Mon Mar 12 15:30:01 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Mar-84 08:47:21 EST References: <259@ihuxu.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 30 (Paraphrased) Query: Do you have the right to criticise the restaurant on the net or in public? Answer: Just called a fellow on my dart team, and who just happens to be a lawyer. Response: First, truth is an absolute defense. If it's true, it can be said or published. (The net is considered publishing) Secondly, First Amendment rights also apply. He said that this situation is exactly analogous to a restaurant reviewer panning a place in the newspaper--from the viewpoint of the law, you and the reviewer are in identical positions. If food or service are terrible, go ahead and tell the world! For those of you who may wonder, as I did, what this means to slander and libel laws: Both relate to false information. Now, don't run out and say or print just any juicy thing you may know about somebody...there's another point, invasion of privacy, that may render even valid information unprintable. This is how Jackie Onassis got rid of that joker who was popping up out of her salad bowl whenever she turned around. My comment is that this is a free legal opinion, so take it on that level; *I* know and trust my lawyer friend, and his opinion; and it sounds quite reasonable (yeah, I know, since when is reasonableness a requisite for the law...) Also, he was quite positive about this. There was none of the hemming and hawing that legal types use to cover themselves when they want to leave themselves an out. Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz