Following the recent Gutnik case, in which free speech and journalism took an absolute hammering at the hands of the High Court of Australia, the ability of the media to pass criticism suffered another damaging blow at the High Court in Villefranche-sur-Saone, central France. As reported in The Times, London, The French regional monthly magazine, Lyon Mag, has lost a libel suit brought by 56 winemaking co-operatives from the Beaujolais region and has been ordered to pay almost $A600,000 damages after denouncing Beaujolais wine as ‘fermented fruit juice’. Lyon Mag also quoted Francois Mauss, president of the Grand Jury of European Wine-Tasters, as describing Beaujolais as: ‘C’est un vin de merde’, which I’m sure doesn’t need translation. The comments were apparently made in late 2002 when certain Beaujolais producers were seeking $A13.5 million in state subsidies to turn 100,000 hectolitres of unsold wine into vinegar. In handing down its decision, the High Court said: ‘By comparing Beaujolais to an excrement, Francois Mauss and the journalist who interviewed him have gone beyond the acceptable exercise of their respective social roles of criticism – even severe criticism.’ Lionel Favrot, editor of Lyon Mag, not unnaturally asked ‘Whatever happened to the right to criticise?’ One sincerely hopes that these two extraordinary decisions, each of which have the capacity to change forever the way that information and opinion are transmitted around the world, are quickly discredited and do not become the landmarks the global media are already fearing they might. If they do, I’m going to need an in-house solicitor with skills and experience in over two hundred countries, twenty languages and twelve religions! and I’m only a wine writer!
