This just sounds like one of those situations where everyone involved is being kinda shitty.
On the surface this is a trivial story, but in reality, this is totally bananas! A local cop policing the internet through means of coercion? Sounds sufficiently interesting to me!
It actually scans better if you assume the policewoman was exceeding her authority and legal knowledge in an attempt to prevent the needless harm of a disabled citizen being sued into oblivion by some over-litiguous asshole. And I'm generally in favour of police exercising that sort of discretion.
It's not a whack with a baton, but government authorities shouldn't call someone to wrongly warn him that his actions might be harassment.
Even if it's libel, that's what lawyers and the civil court system is for.
As for the review:
He had a big problem with putting the trash cans in the walk-in, but I don't really understand why. I leave my trashcan open and in the kitchen all day everyday. Am I putting myself in danger without realizing?
He found some synthetic pot (but isn't that legal?) along with some insulin needles and came to the conclusion that it was narcotics. I had a chuckle when I imagined some guy shooting up heroin on the job but then getting synthetic pot in lieu of the real deal. I just can't imagine. Did he ever consider that the guy was diabetic?
A walk in is by design a closed air-flow environment. Not sure I'd really like a trashcan sitting in a closed environment with food. I usually avoid putting my garbage in the fridge.
My view is that I'm sure the garbage gets emptied, and you're left a dirty bin in the fridge. Maybe it's not the cleaniest thing to do.
To me having this guy complain about the (in my opinion) small things he is complaining about makes it obvious there aren't more urgent health concerns with the place. I would definitely eat there.
I really don't like seeing the police try to get involved, though.
As another user said, this whole thing doesn't rise to the level of serious police abuse of power, put on front page of HN, though.
Do you think one negative Yelp review is going to ruin the owners' lives or livelihood, and that is a more serious concern than following the health code? If the place had been up to code, or the employee's concerns had been allayed, this whole situation could have been avoided, and that's the better way to deal with the situation, compared to police intimidation and hang up calls.
As I said, the law enforcement involvement is wrong, but I don't blame the parlor owner for trying to do SOMETHING.
Not everyone owns a business, especially one that takes the hard work and makes as little money as something like a typical pizza parlor (there's a reason why they're notorious for not lasting long).
So imagine you hire someone to do some work for you, say just odd jobs around your house like fixing faucets, repairing some shutters. You go out of your way to hire someone who could use a break. For some reason it doesn't work out, say he ends up breaking more shutters than he fixes -- so you let him know that you no longer want him to do odd jobs for you.
Now the guy gets pissed and makes it his mission to start messing with you. He's calling your boss/employer, he's driving by your house and telling your neighbors what an a-hole you are, and all around trying to make your life hell because you didn't like the work he was doing for you. It begins to impact your job, maybe costs you a raise or promotion because it's viewed that you're now part of the problem.
So you do nothing?
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.
Basically I feel like the police needn't be involved and that officer probably should have read the Yelp posts prior to calling, I highly doubt this would ever go to trial.
From Yelp http://www.yelp.com/filtered_reviews/ELUSdeDHbZLMVcl4K5qLkw?...:
A month or so ago, I was finally given a job at a local pizzeria named "The Wild Tomato" in Harrisburg. I was given duties mainly related to cleaning and sanitation. The first concern I had was the fact that they were storing trash cans in their walk-in fridge, where uncovered food and sauces were often stored despite health regulations. I learned to ignore this for the sake of employment. I have photos/video of this.
Shortly within the month, I discovered a bag near the outside trash dumpster that contained multiple empty bags that had contained synthetic marijuana, a multitude of hypodermic needles, and receipts for deliveries and time-clock slips, all with the same employee's name listed (one of the drivers). Again, I have photos.
Upon notifying Paul, the owner, he threw away the receipts with the employee's information and told me that it was "no longer my problem". At the time, I assumed that this meant he would take corrective action on his own. However, the employee in question was never reprimanded and continues working at the shop.
Recently, I found another empty vial of synthetic marijuana, this time inside the building in the employee area, among the cleaning supplies.
When I brought it to the attention of Paul, he stated that he did not care about what his employee's did, or if they brought it into the workplace or not, as long as they did not physically use them during work. He told me he could not control what his workers put into their bodies, and asked me if I wanted him to drug test everyone. I mentioned the previous incident with the needles and how I could have gotten stuck by one, causing a liability. He responded "Well then you better stay home, you go outside you could get shot, you could get hit by a car, the real world's dangerous." He also stated that an empty container with a commercial label on it, advertised with drug images but "not for human consumption" could have had anything in it. He said "If I get a vial and put a label that says cocaine on it does that mean it had cocaine in it?". He dismissed any safety concerns I might have had, implying that I was at fault for "having a problem" with narcotics on the premises.
The cops shouldn't have read the reviews and shouldn't have called nor had any interest in this case.
This is incompetence (failing to understand the law) at best, or a cop making an unofficial call to intimidate a citizen as a favor to the pizza place owner at worst.
Either way, there's no good reason for the cops to get involved at all here.
Also, what is someone doing with synthetic marijuana AND hypodermic needles? That part just seems odd.
In any case, I think they both should have left well enough alone. Joseph wanted to change the way the place operated, Paul was having none of it, and that should have been that. Why people feel the need to escalate minor disputes like this to the police is beyond me.
Filtering shill reviews is good for the quality of a review site, but none of the filtered reviews would fit that description.
Trying to explain to this young man that even if he doesn't like his former employer, harassment in the internet is not right way to take it forward, but going to health officials instead. I call that service.
I frankly see no reason for all this butthurt.
His actions were not illegal.
> "harassment in the internet is not right way to take it forward"
His actions weren't harassment, but a very clear expression of his 1A rights.
> "but going to health officials instead"
If a customer suspected health codes were being violated, I would prefer the marketplace be informed as well as health officials. Similarly, if someone gets sick after eating at a restaurant, I would prefer them to tell me, not health code officials.
> "I frankly see no reason for all this butthurt."
I definitely see a reason for it, though I might agree that the reaction in this instance is much larger than it needs to be. Securing pro-bono counsel for the guy is definitely a reasonable response, though. And it might be hard to secure pro-bono counsel without raising the case further into the public eye.
I guess don't really see the problem with the phone call from the police either. It's just a subtle 'I don't want to have to come back out here' warning that they give every day to prevent things from getting to the point that they have to intervene. It does seem like a bored police department, but I didn't hear any threats in the phone call. This article jumps the gun a little bit by inferring collusion between the police and the pizza restaurant.
Yes, they certainly do. There are often more reports than there are resources for the police to respond to. Additionally, if I report something that is obviously frivolous or not illegal, they don't have to investigate. For example: I report to your local PD that you have harassed me with this comment online. It's obviously baseless and frivolous, and they shouldn't spend any time "warning you that it might be illegal".
> "they should probably investigate and determine if a crime actually happened"
Sure, when the police report is made by the harassed party, they should ask the form that the harassment took place as. When the response is "reviews on Yelp", the police should be smart enough to know that it isn't harassment. It could still be libel or defamation, but neither of those are criminal activities, and shouldn't be pursued by the police. There is no need for any investigation that goes beyond the report and maybe looking at the source of the reviews.
> "I guess don't really see the problem with the phone call from the police either"
First of all, I think the officer had good and understandable intentions. I don't think she was overtly threatening or malicious. She was just trying to diffuse a situation. Unfortunately, she was doing so by strongly urging a citizen to stop expressing their rights under 1A.
From one POV it's a helpful police officer trying to defuse a situation; from another POV it's an official agent of the government telling the citizen that they should stop doing an activity that they have every right to. An officer of the law telling you what you're doing is borderline criminal when it's not is going to have a significant chilling effect on speech.
I think this is expressed in quotes from the officer such as:
* "is there any reason you posted those photos?"
* "If there is a violation and you want to show it to someone ... If they feel like there's no violation then you should probably drop it"
* "You put your opinion out there once, twice, I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain"
* "You're borderline criminal / civil harassment there" (this isn't true. It could be a violation of Yelp's TOS, or it could be defamation, but it wouldn't be harassment. Unless they prosecute the violation of Yelp's TOS under the CFAA there is no criminal behavior implied in his actions)
Again, I don't think the officer's intent was bad. I also don't think this was as big a deal as the article made it out to be. However, like I said, it seems perfectly reasonable to secure pro-bono counsel for the guy. An article that tries to make a splash might be a necessary thing for getting pro-bono counsel.
After about the 3rd time of going to a 5-yelp-star place and it being terrible, then digging in to see all the negative reviews were filtered, I had enough. It's why I don't use Yelp anymore.
