Your responsiblity is up to you, but I'd say, make them take the blog out of your cold dead hand. Fight them to the last dime you have.
That is, if you are truly innocent and acting within your rights. Consult a lawyer. If he says "go for it," then I'd say, first thing to do is write up the process so far and post that on you blog too! Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://tinyurl.com/2e7h59 > > Owner of Fairfield's Vivo Restaurant Hires Attorney > > I have never gotten a thank you from anyone who owns a restaurant > which serves food I have celebrated. On the other hand, I did just get > a call from an attorney hired by the owner of Vivo, a restaurant that > served me four meals that I found not to my liking, and blogged about it. > > I never expect a thank you from positive reviews. The question is, > what do I expect from a negative review? Honestly, I never expected a > response from the owner of Vivo. And perhaps that is due to my > ignorance of living in a small town - I assume I am still living in a > larger urban environment where my blog, like most peoples online > presence, is lost in the chatter. There are over 50 million non > "A-list" blogs - what are the chances that any owner of a restaurant I > write about will read my comments on their food? Answer: the owner of > restaurant in a small town. > > If a newspaper says good things about a restaurant, the owners of that > restaurant will cut that article out and frame it in their entryway. > If a newspaper says bad things about a restaurant, I doubt the owners > hire an attorney. I have yet to see a restaurant display a positive > review from a blog, nor have I heard of a blog's negative food review > drawing the attention of an attorney (these are just my perceptions - > they could be completely inaccurate). I assume the reason for this is > because aside from some sort of A-list food critic blog, the attention > doesn't really mean much. It's just some blogger with an opinion - and > you know what they say about opinions . . . > > So back to Vivo. Last week the owner called me and asked if I would > take down the article. I said I would edit it. I've made a couple > edits in an attempt to make the review less harsh and I have asked > friends if the article is mean or defamatory. The response I've gotten > is that the article is about a bad food experience, and not an attack > on anyone or business. > > This morning I get a call from an attorney representing the owner of > Vivo. He told me that the article was malicious and requested that it > be taken down. I asked him what was malicious about it. He said the > tone was malicious. I said, send me an email or letter stating what > should be changed to make the article not malicious and I will make > those changes. He refused to do that or cooperate/work with me in any > way. His purpose in this matter is to get the article removed, and in > my perception, silence my opinion. I ended the call once it was clear > he was not going to work with me to edit the parts perceived as malicious. > > To be clear, when someone uses the word malicious, I take that to mean > "intent to cause harm to another". The article was not intended to > cause anyone harm. It's a food review - a bad food review. Nothing more. > > I've thought a lot about it lately. I mean, I don't want to cause > anyone distress - this is certainly not my intent. So why not remove > the article? Well, on one hand that would be so easy, but on the other > hand it feels like not being honest. My blog is an online diary plain > and simple. I write about what's on my mind when I have time. Do I > only write about the good stuff? What's my responsibility as a > blogger? What's my responsibility as a blogger in a small town? >
