PADI v Diverlink

[Otter]

Walter, congrats. At least the truth is still legal.

Based upon what I found, the only thing that was affirmed was that Walter wrote the article and not Diverlink and that Diverlink has immunity from defamation

"The district court correctly found that PADI cannot establish a probability of
prevailing on its claims, because Diverlink is immune from liability for defamation
under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), which provides that “[n]o provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any
information provided by another information content provider.” Under the
definitions set forth under the statute and the evidence submitted, Diverlink is
entitled to § 230(c)(1) immunity. The evidence before us establishes that Diverlink
did not write any of the allegedly defamatory statements, but was simply the
publisher of an article written by Walt Wilt that set forth those statements. Even
taking all the evidence (such as emails or other articles written by Diverlink) in the
light most favorable to PADI, PADI still cannot establish that Diverlink fails to
qualify for § 230(c)(1) immunity"

Walter could have wrote anything about PADI and Diverlink would have been safe.

By the look of things, Water was not even party to the suit.

Its the same thing that allows us to say whatever we want on here, without Netdoc getting taken to court.

 

[DivePartner1]

. . .
Its the same thing that allows us to say whatever we want on here, without Netdoc getting taken to court.

Not really but it's been discussed ad nausem in prior years here and on other sites, such as Undercurrent. Try the search feature.

 

[Walter]

Yes, that is the issue on which the District Court ruled and on which PADI appealed. Disappointing that the court didn't rule on more basic issues. If they had not thrown it out there, it's likely it would have been dismissed because the suit wasn't filed in a timely manner.

I have no idea why I was not named as a party to the suit instead of just being called as a witness.

 

[DivePartner1]

. . . .
DivePartner1,

Thanks. Dotty is amazing! She's a fantastic lawyer and a wonderful human being. She took this case at her own expense, not knowing if she'd ever see a dime, even to cover her expenses. Now she can finally get compensated for all her hard work.

I agree. I've talked to her and she also struck me as a well prepared and knowledgable trial lawyer. I wouldn't hestitate to recommend her to anyone who needed a lawyer who thoroughly understands how PADI operates.

Also, I wouldn't be too concerned about debating anonymous posters here or anywhere. We know who you are.

As far as we know, River could be posting from PADI or one of its franchises.

 

[Otter]

For full disclosure purposes, I am a PADI instructor.

I am not a PADI employee, but when I read the objective part of Walter's comparison, I don't see a major problem -- sure a couple of PADI's skills are treated interestingly - like the swimming requirement and there are a couple of mistakes -- but I'd have to go back to see when a requirement was added. Not being familiar with NAUI's and YMCAs, it just as possible there are mistakes there...all in all not too overtly biased.

His analysis (while not labeled subjective/opinion; but clearly is) is so-so. To say PADI removed the swimming requirements is misleading, unless of course, you refer back to Walter's definition of swimming that doesn't allow for the use of a mask, snorkel, or fins. In practice, I have yet to see a student NOT complete PADI's swimming requirements via the 200 yd swim and 10 minute tread. But it makes for titilating reading when you can say "PADI...the student may complete the course without knowing how to swim"


His Conclusion (opinion) is clearly that. The fact that he spends 14 sentences stating PADI's position, using perjorative terms like harassment, and giving detail and background on why PADI doesn't require certain skills, yet spends only 1 sentence indicating that Naui should require a no-mask breath, breathing from a free-flowing regulator, and improving swimming skills should clearly demonstrate his bias to even the most casual reader.

IMHO, there is greater probability of needing to be able to breath underwater without a mask or with a freeflowing regulator than having to orally inflate my buddy's BCD -- not to mention the skill difficulty [how different is it to orally inflate my buddy's BCD than it is to orally inflate my own -- unless of course NAUI is simultaneously teaching the student how to approach a panicing buddy -- a likely scenario if were necessary to inflate your buddy's BCD).

But none of this was even the subject of the court case....

 

[Otter]

...Also, I wouldn't be too concerned about debating anonymous posters here or anywhere. We know who you are.

Yes his prior posts/article tell a clear and consistent story and his affiliations documented.

..As far as we know, River could be posting from PADI or one of its franchises.

YA think? And if it were true (which, looking at his IP address, makes that VERY unlikely), doesn't that make his opinion or assertions of truth any more or less factual or are you trying to impune him through affiliation?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

As far as we know, River could be posting from PADI or one of its franchises.

From previous threads, RIDiver has identified himself as an employee at a PADI 5 Star facility in Rhode Island (hence, the name).

From reading his posts these past several months I would conclude that he's proud of his association with this shop, feels that he and his associates offer their clientele a quality product, and is irked by someone making negative assumptions about that product based solely on agency affiliation.

Those impressions, at times, appear justified ... at least, to me.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DivePartner1]

. . . .YA think? And if it were true (which, looking at his IP address, makes that VERY unlikely), doesn't that make his opinion or assertions of truth any more or less factual or are you trying to impune him through affiliation?

Well, from your links we know that you have a vested business interest in defending PADI. Your link promotes your business and discloses the affiliation with PADI. It's not surprising that you would defend PADI, even emotionally, nor is it wrong.

Still, many of us on this board have no dog in this fight and form our judgments based on what we know of the actors. Walter chose the approach of public discourse and put his piece out for the public to judge. PADI took a different path -- not by challenging Walter but by trying to bully internet services with the threat of costly litigation. It didn't work.

The U.S. Appeals Court agreed that what Walter posted on Diverlink was fair game -- legitimate safety discussions protected by California's anti-SLAP law. This law is intended to prevent misuse of libel laws to quash legitimate discourse of issues of public interest. Walter and Diverlink have the same right to rate services as Consumer Reports, which also wins these kinds of attack suits.

Frankly, the real losers here are the businesses that depend on PADI. If I were a PADI franchisee, I would be annoyed at management of this whole affair and, in doing so, how it devalued my business. They shot themselves in the foot by making this a bigger issue and continue to do so in every post that keeps this debate alive.

 

[Web Monkey]

The difference if makes FF is that my experience with walter is he is a PADI bashing troll here on SB. Every time somebody tries to say something nice about PADI there is walter with an unkind word and lack of objectivity on the subject of PADI in any posts that he contributes too on this board. Without saying it his mantra seems to be PADI sucks. Nice mantra.

That's certainly his right.

If you want to argue for reduced skill sets and an ever smaller amount of classroom work and pool sessions, that's your right too.

I'm certain there are good PADI instructors, but I'm also sure that it's possible to teach only the requirements for the now even-shorter PADI OW class and hand out a C-Card with PADI's blessing.

I get to dive with a few dozen PADI victims every winter while on vacation. Most will never dive again, because of physical or emotional damage.

Terry

 

[Otter]

Well, from your links we know that you have a vested business interest in defending PADI. Your link promotes your business and discloses the affiliation with PADI. It's not surprising that you would defend PADI, even emotionally, nor is it wrong.

Still, many of us on this board have no dog in this fight and form our judgments based on what we know of the actors. Walter chose the approach of public discourse and put his piece out for the public to judge. PADI took a different path -- not by challenging Walter but by trying to bully internet services with the threat of costly litigation. It didn't work.

The U.S. Appeals Court agreed that what Walter posted on Diverlink was fair game -- legitimate safety discussions protected by California's anti-SLAP law. This law is intended to prevent misuse of libel laws to quash legitimate discourse of issues of public interest. Walter and Diverlink have the same right to rate services as Consumer Reports, which also wins these kinds of attack suits.

Frankly, the real losers here are the businesses that depend on PADI. If I were a PADI franchisee, I would be annoyed at management of this whole affair and, in doing so, how it devalued my business. They shot themselves in the foot by making this a bigger issue and continue to do so in every post that keeps this debate alive.

FWIW, my vested business interest represents something approaching 1% of my annual income. What I do resent is the manipulations of fact into something that just teeters on truth, whether its about PADI, IRAQ, or my next door neighbor's kid's behavior.

Opinions are opinions, facts are facts. When the two are used interchangably, then problems arise.