 |
| [leopard sleeping in a tree*] |
Translators and editors are often called upon not only to correct texts
but to make judgments about their writers. They even sometimes do so on their
own volition. These assessments can potentially expose these linguists to a
charge of defamation in certain circumstances. As I learned at an excellent
webinar presented by Galit Golan , advocate, of the law firm of Firon and Associates,
in Israel professional critiques enjoy significant projection from the charges
of defamation but involve some care when choosing the actual words. This issue
is relevant when performing professional services and also when “entertaining” colleagues with
awful examples and warning them of potential dangers from perspective customers.
The key is careful consideration of any such comments.
In Israel, defamation involves several elements, primarily the sharing
of information with another party that could objectively humiliate or harm the
third party. Israeli law does protect certain circumstances, most notably when
the receiving party has the authority or obligation to receive that
information. Most interestingly, once defamation is established, the court can
award up to 79,000 NIS, almost 22,000 USD, (as of this year) to the damaged
party without the latter having to prove damages. Clearly, given the complexity
of the matter, in the case of doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
As relevant to translators and editors, the issue can arise when
completing QA and translation test assessment forms. To demonstrate, in a case involving a chef sending the management a picture of a member of the kitchen
staff taking a nice nap under a tree, the court found the hotel and chef guilty
of defamation not because of the picture since the chef had an obligation to
inform the employer. Instead, the court found cause in the sarcastic caption under the picture, which
mentioned the need to purchase a mattress for the employee. Likewise, it is the
clear duty and obligation of the linguists to note all linguistic errors,
whether objective or style, as well as answer any specific question regarding
the overall level. Thus, it would be appropriate to write “The translators
lacks sufficient knowledge in the subject matter to properly translate such
texts” if the facts back up this conclusion. However, it may be dangerous to
write “the translator has no understanding of the source language” as the
provided sample does not justify that conclusion and may harm the career of the
translator. When so requested by relevant parties, only relevant criticism advisable.
Considering the same case, linguists should be careful when sharing
“funny” examples of poor translations or awful writing. Many translators share
photos of amusing menu items and tourist site signs. In their basic form, these
posts are merely publicizing public information, objective truths. However, if
the posting party adds a comment such as “I hope the restaurant pays its chefs
more than it paid its translators”, defamation may become an issue as the post
goes beyond the linguistic disaster in the restaurant menu to question the
quality of its food. Again, think before you post.
Of critical importance to freelancers, including translators and
editors, is the sharing of information on problematic customers. The legimitate
purpose here is prevent others from having the same unpleasant experience. In
this regard, one of the cases brought up in the webinar is illuminating. A
teacher received compensation after the letter to the parents specified conviction
as the reason for dismissal instead of police investigation, which was the
actual case. When colleagues request feedback on a specific agency or
translator, whether privately or publicly, it would be advisable to stick the
facts and avoid making general conclusions. For example, it would be apparently
be acceptable to state the agency only paid after four months but riskier to
write” the agency is a poor payer”, as the writer cannot justify the comment without
checking with most if not all the translators working with it. Without the
ability to prove a statement that may harm the third party, the warning party
may be exposed to a defamation complain in Israel.
Clearly, every country has its own rules for defamation. Moreover, only
legal experts can properly analyze any specific set of facts. However, an ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of care. Translators and editors should be very
careful in how they write their critiques, however justified they may be, and
avoid overreaching. As linguists have sharp pens, we need to watch our tongues.
* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment