Can A Bad Review Be Criminal Libel?

This week, a French court will rule on whether a law professor in New York committed criminal libel, by publishing a bad review of a book.


The review in question can be found here for those that are interested. It's not a particularly harsh review. There is a degree of criticism of the text and editing, but it is reasonably balanced. The reviewer Thomas Weigend, a constitutional law professor lays out his reasoning quite clearly, and even suggests exactly how the work could be improved. 


The author, Ms. Calvo-Goller, has claimed that the review “may cause harm to my professional reputation and academic promotion.” The case obviously could not be heard in America due to it's freedom of speech, and the choice of a Parisian setting seems to be due to their stricter laws on the subject.


If the article had contained personal attacks, this could be understandable. However, allowing authors to sue over bad reviews sets a dangerous precedent, basically making it impossible for unbiased critiques to exist. What is the point of reviews if one can object and remove those that are in any way negative?


Besides which, it seems counter-productive for the author herself. It was not a particularly major review. It was an online review that few people would have read. Authors will always receive poor views from someone, somewhere, and should be prepared for such events. However, by bringing this as a criminal case, her actions themselves are doing far more damage to her reputation than one review ever could.