“Biggest Geek Ever”: Banned from Chateau Marmont for Tweeting

Apparently, Chateau Marmont would like to keep its hallowed grounds Twitter-free out of respect, I assume, for the privacy of their guests who often do insane things.  Jenn Hoffman found out the hard way: she was having a perfectly normal dinner, “there’s a few different celebrities there, no big deal.”  (Aside: That is your LA moment, right there.).  She catches Rachel Hunter engaging in all sorts of crazy, tweets about it, and then, when trying to make another reservation recently, discovers she’s been banned for tweeting about the incident.

Whether there’s an unsaid rule against tweeting and whatnot, I don’t know, because I’ve never been to the Chateau – my LA moments involve being stuck in traffic – but what say you?  How do you even enforce a rule like that?  If celebrities and marginally famous people and not-famous people can’t have a Twitter-free moment at the Chateau, where will they go?  Shouldn’t people over the age of 10 try to act not-crazy in public places anyway, because Twitter or not, they will be judged and ridiculed and that’s really the price you pay for acting like so in front of others?  So many ethical questions.


6 thoughts on ““Biggest Geek Ever”: Banned from Chateau Marmont for Tweeting”

  1. Interesting no policy in place yet they ban her while others have done it too. Part of me says its their business and they can run it how they want, other part says its got to be done the same for everyone.

    I’d say I’d boycott the place, but it would be pointless as one lowly blogger doesn’t impact much and besides…its off my beaten path only been there once in all the time I’ve lived here. (And it wasn’t that good either).

  2. That’s an interesting situation. At first it seems an over-reactionary punishment meted out by the hotel, but I can see where the Chateau is coming from; celebs are a big part of their bread and butter, and a component of why people go there either to visit or drop serious coin for rooms. If the woman banned had just tweeted something innocuous or nonjudgmental (or HELLO: left out mention of the hotel) I’d imagine there’d be no repercussions. But she named searchable names and described the alleged erratic behavior, and it got back either to Hunter and/or hotel management and now the tweeter’s had her wings clipped.

    At the same time she’s not wrong to expect the hotel to have a social media stance in place, whether in the form of general “No Tweeting” signs or a more elaborate policy, but unfortunately it’s always going to be a preferential thing. If Rachel Hunter tweeted that night “There’s a blonde nearby at the Chateau looks like she could be a crazy Vienna wanna-be” (from The Bachelor, work with me here), odds are Rachel wouldn’t be denied a table next time. Such is life in The Hellywood.

  3. So disorderly, drunken behavior is ok but tweeting about it is what gets you banned from the place? What if Hoffman had been the one acting out and Hunter had been the tweeter?

  4. Great post! Mixed feelings about this. The amount of “celebrity news”, including everything from major publications & tv networks to blogs to the tweet in question from someone who says she’s a sometimes reporter, is at epidemic levels, & is surely a sign of something sick or at least pathetic about Americans. On the other hand, you can’t legislate away the demand for this stuff, which is obviously insatiable.

    Practically speaking, this case won’t make much of a difference. That’s because Hoffman was only found out after the fact b/c she tweeted under her real name. How many people do that? Based on my twitter use, which is extensive, I’d say no more than 10%. And, obviously, an increasing number of people tweet from their phones. So unless C.M. is going to ban phones, which I doubt, this policy will be all but unenforceable.

    That said, I’ve never been to C.M. and am long overdue for a drink in the bar. So I think I, Queequeg, and others should go there one night and stage a “tweet-in”.

Comments are closed.