Be careful. You're assuming here that the pizza parlor actually was breaking the health code, and the pictures haven't been doctored or altered in some way.
In the US criminal system one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of peers, not accused in a kangaroo court of internet denizens.
In the US criminal system one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of peers, not accused in a kangaroo court of internet denizens.
This is completely backwards. The only one who got (unwarranted IMHO) attention from the criminal justice system was the Yelp user. In the USA, as well as in every other location where free speech is valued, the owner of the pizza dive is just going to have to put up with the accusations of internet denizens.
As I see it, the pizza parlor is being accused by the former employees of sanitation issues that break the local health code ordinances.
The situation regarding the officer is unfortunate, but I fail to see where a real overreach occurred on her part (despite PopeHat's claim).
From the pizza parlor owner's POV, a former employee is harassing him online and having a negative impact to the business--especially if the claims by the former employee cannot be corroborated.
...if the claims by the former employee cannot be corroborated.
Corroborated by whom? The King of the Internet? Health code violations are investigated by local officials hired for that purpose. For all I know, no such officials have even heard of this kefuffle, but they certainly don't care about what some guy posted on Yelp. Even if a health inspector made an extra inspection on the basis of this, it isn't a hardship to be inspected, so no one can complain.
Assuming you are or know the owner of this pizza dive, no one is "harassing" you by posting a review of your crappy restaurant. If any particular review contains statements which are propositions of fact (not opinion!) and if you can prove those propositions are false (not merely if the reviewer can't prove them true), then you might have a civil case for defamation/libel/whatever.
If you're a USA citizen, this shouldn't be news to you. We have something called the First Amendment, and this is how it works.
Please come down off the throne, oh king of the Internet, and join the world around you.
/s
For all I know
Of course the claims would need to be corroborated by local health officials in order for circumstance to be verified. Also, defamation and deciet to punish a bad employer via libel are not protected speech, even if posted online.
Look, I agree with you, the pizza parlor guy seems to have had it coming to him, and is acting pretty seedy from the POV of PopeHat. But this could also be something innocuous that a burned former employee is blowing out of proportion. And we're whipping up an Internet mob. Dude seems like a crook, but that don't make him one, even if we think it quacks like it.
Comments
Be careful. You're assuming here that the pizza parlor actually was breaking the health code, and the pictures haven't been doctored or altered in some way.
In the US criminal system one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of peers, not accused in a kangaroo court of internet denizens.
In the US criminal system one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of peers, not accused in a kangaroo court of internet denizens.
This is completely backwards. The only one who got (unwarranted IMHO) attention from the criminal justice system was the Yelp user. In the USA, as well as in every other location where free speech is valued, the owner of the pizza dive is just going to have to put up with the accusations of internet denizens.
As I see it, the pizza parlor is being accused by the former employees of sanitation issues that break the local health code ordinances.
The situation regarding the officer is unfortunate, but I fail to see where a real overreach occurred on her part (despite PopeHat's claim).
From the pizza parlor owner's POV, a former employee is harassing him online and having a negative impact to the business--especially if the claims by the former employee cannot be corroborated.
...if the claims by the former employee cannot be corroborated.
Corroborated by whom? The King of the Internet? Health code violations are investigated by local officials hired for that purpose. For all I know, no such officials have even heard of this kefuffle, but they certainly don't care about what some guy posted on Yelp. Even if a health inspector made an extra inspection on the basis of this, it isn't a hardship to be inspected, so no one can complain.
Assuming you are or know the owner of this pizza dive, no one is "harassing" you by posting a review of your crappy restaurant. If any particular review contains statements which are propositions of fact (not opinion!) and if you can prove those propositions are false (not merely if the reviewer can't prove them true), then you might have a civil case for defamation/libel/whatever.
If you're a USA citizen, this shouldn't be news to you. We have something called the First Amendment, and this is how it works.
Please come down off the throne, oh king of the Internet, and join the world around you.
/s
Of course the claims would need to be corroborated by local health officials in order for circumstance to be verified. Also, defamation and deciet to punish a bad employer via libel are not protected speech, even if posted online.
Look, I agree with you, the pizza parlor guy seems to have had it coming to him, and is acting pretty seedy from the POV of PopeHat. But this could also be something innocuous that a burned former employee is blowing out of proportion. And we're whipping up an Internet mob. Dude seems like a crook, but that don't make him one, even if we think it quacks like it.