[izbnso]

I received this e-mail twice (from two separate individuals) yesterday. Only one of the two people who sent it to me knew that I knew the owner of this establishment. The number of e-mail addresses that it had already bent sent to was absolutely staggering. I have copied it here, but removed all references to names and places. I will say that knowing the owner, I don’t find anything incredulous in this e-mail.

Mod edit: I understand the motivation, but this really is something you received from someone who got it from someone else who read it somewhere. End of discussion.

[phatch]

If the cops were called because I complained about a meal, I'd be making as much noise as possible anywhere I could. I'd probably even picket the establishment from the public sidewalk.

Now, we're not getting the whole story. But threatening a restaurant with bad press is probably libelous and the paper would want no part of that story because of the threat. The story could be told without libel, but the threat just messes things up.

In poking around, the story including a weak rebuttal from the establishment can be found on-line pretty easily as well as earlier reports of the establishment getting bad health inspections and sightings of mice in the dining room.

Based on the limited stuff I'd seen, I'd hope the restaurant fails or gets new management ASAP.

[boar_d_laze]

Originally Posted by phatch

Now, we're not getting the whole story. But threatening a restaurant with bad press is probably libelous

Highly unlikely.

and the paper would want no part of that story because of the threat.

There are a few jurisdictions with some pretty wacky business defamation laws -- Texas, for instance. But I'm not aware of any legal theory whereby a spoken intent to publish a true, but negative comment is either in itself defamatory or strengthens an argument that the negative comment itself is defamatory.

The story could be told without libel, but the threat just messes things up.

Maybe, but I'd like to see some authority on this. In any case, the truth is an absolute defense to most defamation actions. The restaurant would carry the burden of proving her story false, or else she could not be found liable. It seems here that she has enough corroboration to prevent plaintiff from proving by preponderance of the evidence that the account was not true. Moreover, if the restaurant's owner has (or had) any intent to sue, she ought to do it now while it's at the email, private, level. Once a newspaper becomes involved, it's very difficult to overcome the strong First Amendment protection accorded to them as in Times v. Sullivan. Finally, the threat to publish seems to have been made without an "or else," so it does not appear extortionate in any way.

In poking around, the story including a weak rebuttal from the establishment can be found on-line pretty easily as well as earlier reports of the establishment getting bad health inspections and sightings of mice in the dining room.

Well, there you go.

BDL

[boar_d_laze]

Izzie,

As to your actual question: I can't recall seeing it with a restaurant, but have certainly seen it with other businesses. I can't imagine that this is the first restaurant that has been bad-mouthed this way.

Ah, the power of the internet,
BDL

[OregonYeti]

It's so extreme that it sounds like a chain letter to me. One person defaming a restaurant and others pass it on without question. That happens a lot on the internet.

I like the Olive Garden I've been to, but not a regular at all. I'd disregard this as spam.

[oldschool1982]

Well....there's a formula I was taught about how one guests bad experience can multiply. It uses the number 1. It kinda goes like this. 1+1 =11 +1=111+1=1111+1=11111 etc....... I'd almost say that's the formula at work but then again I'd have to agree it's probably spam.

[OregonYeti]

One unidentified person makes up a sensational story, and it is instantly popular gossip. What does the originator gain? Giggling about all the attention.