basically ... that is PADI's argument

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by TDI_2 on May 01, 2002 at 16:53:56:

In Reply to: your proposition is ludicrous posted by Chris on May 01, 2002 at 15:19:40:

A good faith effort to publish truthful information, with corrections, is normally the expectation that a jury would have to exculpate a defendant from a charge of defamation.

The YMCA post is more or less an ad for YMCA but it could be misinterpreted by the public to be an informational disclosure. It contains two other precious names on it, NAUI and PADI, and those names can be defended in a court by a petition for redress.

It still does not solve the jurisdiction issue. Is the internet like a missile? And if so, does firing a missile warrant dragging someone across the country to answer a complaint over it in civil court? I dont know.

The jury wont care what many good things come of Divernet. They probably will be old senior citizens who dont scuba dive and never have. They will care about the plaintive wails of the petitioner on the matter of the statements in the chart. Even if that jury is a California jury or a Florida jury.

There is sort of a homespun corrolary to "if you cant say something nice dont say anything at all." It goes "keep your words soft and sweet in case you have to eat them."

I would hate to see Divernet put out of business over a YMCA ad. But maybe PADI feels differently. Truth in advertising has been around as a legal doctrine for a long time. Especially when you mention a competitors name.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]