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