After the bad review I gave American Airlines and US Airways yesterday, I now see that even in our free country where the First Amendment protects the right to utter opinions, a bad review can nonetheless lead to government intervention -- in the form of a libel suit.

I kid you not. The Philadelphia Inquirer's food critic Craig LaBan (a pseudonymous reviewer) has been hauled into court for complaining about a bad steak!

In a case that involves issues as lofty as the First Amendment and as basic as which cut of meat was served, a restaurant critic is being sued for libel for describing a $15 piece of beef as "miserably tough and fatty."

The restaurant is seeking unspecified damages. But the stakes for Philadelphia Inquirer critic Craig LaBan have been raised immeasurably by a judge's ruling that forced LaBan to give a deposition on camera.

If the footage becomes public, LaBan could be unmasked for all the city's chefs to see.

Attorneys for the newspaper say that would be the unkindest cut of all.

"Mr. LaBan's anonymity is important to the process by which he reviews restaurants," Inquirer lawyers said in court papers. "If a restaurant knew Mr. LaBan was in its dining room, it might put on a show for him that would not be provided to the general dining public."

It all began with a Feb. 4 capsule review of Chops restaurant, a steakhouse owned by Alex Plotkin in nearby Bala Cynwyd. The last two sentences read: "A recent meal, though, was expensive and disappointing, from the soggy and sour chopped salad to a miserably tough and fatty strip steak. The crabcake, though, was excellent."

Of course, if Plotkin is forced to hand the business over to the Inky, I'd be delighted to make a reservation.

MORE: It appears that Plotkin (owner of the restaurant in question) is a lawyer.

I don't know where he went to law school, but perhaps the place deserves a bad review for not stressing that little "free speech" part that's supposed to be taught in basic Constitutional Law. I went to the University of San Francisco, and I remember being given a very distinct impression that opinions are offered broad First Amendment protection.

And according to PhilaFoodie, Plotkin accused the Inquirer critic of some sort of plot along the following lines:

Plotkin claims LaBan has a "vendetta" against him because Plotkin "jokingly" threatened to reveal his identity to a room full of Chops patrons in 2002. He also claims that LaBan's invite to participate in his weekly Q&A forum was a "set up" during which LaBan planned to further embarrass Plotkin with the aid of (and I love this phrase) "sham 'bloggers'."

I've been blogging for over four years, but I'm not quite sure I know how to spot a sham "blogger." Assuming that Plotkin is not referring to automated spammer blogs, even if we suppose there are real-life "sham" bloggers, don't they have the same First Amendment rights as non-sham bloggers?

Speaking of the allegedly "misrepresented" steak in question, according to Philebrity, the owner's version of the story has changed:

Apparently LaBan dissed on Chops restaurant's "Steak Frites" in a 3 sentence review, and owner Alex Plotkin -- who, it must be said, comes off a little meshuggenah in all of this -- says that LaBan ate something entirely different: "a steak sandwich without the bread." It's the shot heard 'round the nobodyfuckincares. Plotkin even recanted the sandwich misstatement but not before he sued for libel.

Sheesh.

What kind of country are we living in when we can't even say a steak was lousy?