• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sandy Hook settlement

psionl0 said:
I can only reiterate Dr.Sid:
Has placing a gun product in a video game "been demonstrated to be conclusively linked to violence"?
Click to expand...

Your question is too specific and framed too narrowly. It should be "has an advertisement ever broken a law?"

I can only reiterate my earlier post

...Remington were the advertisers and therefore it was they who broke the state law (the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act)

The law does not hold the carrier of the advertising accountable, it holds the advertiser of the product accountable.

When a company makes a misleading claim in a radio advertisement, the radio station is not accountable, the company is!

When a company makes an inappropriate suggestion a television advertisement, the television station is not accountable, the company is

When a company makes an offensive or racist remark in a newspaper advertisement, the newspaper is not accountable, the company is

Advertising can have deeply negative effects on children and young people. It can provoke tobacco and alcohol consumption, encourage obesity and eating disorders and encourage them to try life-threatening or dangerous stunts among other things.
 
arthwollipot said:
If you read my reply carefully, my answer to your question is there.
Click to expand...
The question only required a "yes" or "no" answer. Why you would answer it in a such a way that the answer needs to be read "carefully" is a mystery.

If your answer means "no" (cue "I didn't mean that") then there is no basis for the law suit.
 
psionl0 said:
The question only required a "yes" or "no" answer. Why you would answer it in a such a way that the answer needs to be read "carefully" is a mystery.

If your answer means "no" (cue "I didn't mean that") then there is no basis for the law suit.
Click to expand...
X is not Y.

Oh but what about this specific aspect of X? Is this little bit of X Y?

No bit of X is Y.

I answered it the way I did to reinforce the point that video games have never been found to be a causal factor of violence, ever, for any reason.
 
psionl0 said:
This is a civil case and not a criminal case.
Click to expand...

Utterly irrelevant. If you had been following the case (as I have) and if you had bothered to actually read what those who have been following the case have posted, you would have realised this.

The lawsuit (a civil action) alleges that Remington BROKE THE LAW!!! Specifically, Connecticut General Statue 42-110a et seq (a.k.a. the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act). Thsi is the predicate act for 15 USC § 7903 - part of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which specifically prohibits the unethical advertising of dangerous products for illegal purposes.

15 USC § 7903
(5) (A) Qualified civil liability action
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought​

The video game makers have nothing whatever to do with this, they are the carrier, NOT the advertiser!
 
arthwollipot said:
X is not Y.

Oh but what about this specific aspect of X? Is this little bit of X Y?

No bit of X is Y.

I answered it the way I did to reinforce the point that video games have never been found to be a causal factor of violence, ever, for any reason.

I didn't mean that.
Click to expand...

ftfy.
 
smartcooky said:
. . . an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought[/INDENT]
Click to expand...
Read what you posted. Both conditions need to be satisfied for a suit to exist.

smartcooky said:
The video game makers have nothing whatever to do with this, they are the carrier, NOT the advertiser!
Click to expand...
It is totally ridiculous to claim that the video game makers can write the code to insert the "advertisement" but have "nothing to do with it". It's like saying that the receiver of stolen property has nothing to do with the stolen property.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Read what you posted. Both conditions need to be satisfied for a suit to exist.
Click to expand...

And yet the Judge allowed the action to proceed (whiich means he rules both conditions were satisfied) and Remington's insurers settled.

Hmmm....

psionl0 said:
It is totally ridiculous to claim that the video game makers newspaper typesetter can write the code set the type to insert the "advertisement" but have "nothing to do with it".
Click to expand...

FTFY to show you how ridiculous you are being

psionl0 said:
It's like saying that the receiver of stolen property has nothing to do with the stolen property.
Click to expand...

It is nothing like that at all, not even remotely

The Law is clear. The carrier is not legally responsible for the advertiser's content. You might think that is a ridiculous state of affairs (I don't) but its the law. If you have an issue with it, write to the US Government and tell them how angry you are about it... I'm sure they will take notice.
 
Last edited:
cmikes said:
Does this set a precedent? Can the Waukesha families file a lawsuit against whoever manufactured the SUV that Darrel Brooks was driving?
Click to expand...

I imagine more than a few litigators have been paying close attention to this case.

I'm not familiar with the Darrel Brooks case your citing, but I don't think it's inconceivable that a car manufacturer could be found liable under a similar fact pattern.

As a quick example:

Dodge said:
Dominate the road; own the night.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/dodge/status/587299144391360513

I would wonder if advertising what is essentially a road-legal race car in this way could come back to bite Dodge in the ass if someone selected their products to commit a vehicle attack, or even in cases of injuries and deaths cased by dangerous driving of overpowered vehicles.

This seems like a pretty open acknowledgement that the draw of these high horsepower vehicles is in part due to people's interest to engage in dangerous and illegal driving.

If someone plowed into a pedestrian in a crosswalk in their Dodge Challenger doing 80mph on a 20mph zone, would Dodge want to explain why they sold this vehicle with marketing promising to "dominate the road"?
 
Last edited:
Can anybody find the specific ad?

Or is the game considered to be an ad in CT? Which game ? Snippet/screen shot?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
FTFY to show you how ridiculous you are being
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem ridiculous to me. In fact I think you both make a very good point: Publishers of objectionable ads should bear some of the responsibility for publishing the ad, alongside the advertiser who paid them for the publication.

In fact now I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where a mercenary who accepted money to do evil on behalf of another wouldn't be equally complicit in the evil done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom