2
2
0
Isn't this akin to allowing Ford, Smith & Wesson, SWAT-ing PDs, and others for their products / services being used, misused, and/or abused by EVIL people for EVIL ends?
NOTICE, link-posting does NOT endorse... >>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/20/tech/supreme-court-tech-platforms/index.html
NOTICE, link-posting does NOT endorse... >>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/20/tech/supreme-court-tech-platforms/index.html
Two Supreme Court cases this week could upend the entire internet | CNN Business
Posted from cnn.com
Law
Constitution
Supreme Court
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
Very similar to the weapons issue...but the media companies have decided to weigh in on who gets to post.
(3)
(0)
PFC Edgar Mosier
You did note that I tied in "swatting" and vehicles being weaponized, like that Christmas run-down terror act?
Aren't we as intelligent as the SCOTUS, just not as specifically educated or employed?
BTW, have you heard about DeSantis' firing a State Attorney because he posted that he'd not fulfill the tasks he was elected to do: uphold the State Law?
https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-12-05/looking-into-the-implications-of-floridas-andrew-warren-trial
Aren't we as intelligent as the SCOTUS, just not as specifically educated or employed?
BTW, have you heard about DeSantis' firing a State Attorney because he posted that he'd not fulfill the tasks he was elected to do: uphold the State Law?
https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-12-05/looking-into-the-implications-of-floridas-andrew-warren-trial
Looking into the implications of Florida's Andrew Warren trial
It's been described as the political power of the governor vs. the First Amendment free speech right of elected officials. We talk with a retired circuit court judge about the implications of the Andrew Warren trial.
(2)
(0)
The key in the Gonzalez case is not that bad actors are misusing the platform (YouTube) by posting videos, but that 'suggested viewing' (much like the "Read This Next" at the bottom of your screen on RallyPoint) encouraged illegal activity (in this case, terrorism).
Using your analogy above, an actor/entity used a product/service for a bad outcome that abused what the product/service was intended for. In those situations, the actor/entity is held liable for the bad outcome.
What if the actor/entity is another aspect of the product/service itself? This is the crux of the argument.
Using your analogy above, an actor/entity used a product/service for a bad outcome that abused what the product/service was intended for. In those situations, the actor/entity is held liable for the bad outcome.
What if the actor/entity is another aspect of the product/service itself? This is the crux of the argument.
(2)
(0)
COL Randall C.
Yeah ... we're a very litigious society.
Personally, I think there should be a more structured review of cases and a requirement that courts do an active acknowledgement that a case is not frivolous rather than what is now (they CAN determine a case as being frivolous if they deem it is egregious enough). That would put the onus on the system to police themselves.
BTW - it's a common misconception that the "McDonald Hot Coffee" lawsuit was a frivolous lawsuit. It was not. The factual findings of the case were gross violations of consumer safety* by McDonalds
----------------------------------------------------
* https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck
Personally, I think there should be a more structured review of cases and a requirement that courts do an active acknowledgement that a case is not frivolous rather than what is now (they CAN determine a case as being frivolous if they deem it is egregious enough). That would put the onus on the system to police themselves.
BTW - it's a common misconception that the "McDonald Hot Coffee" lawsuit was a frivolous lawsuit. It was not. The factual findings of the case were gross violations of consumer safety* by McDonalds
----------------------------------------------------
* https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck
What a lot of people get wrong about the infamous 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit
Adam Ruins Everything explains that the case wasn’t about greed, but about a working-class woman forcing a big company to make its product safer.
(2)
(0)
PFC Edgar Mosier
COL Randall C. - Bottomline, we both agree(/), is not "Buyer be ware.", but "Please, use your God-given (It's still 'America'.) commonsense."
Thanks for the better enlightenment, but my point was that coffee is normally hot and paper-cups have been known to leak or fall apart, not greed on Stella's part.
That said, would one tend to argue that had she held a chainsaw (not running) across her lap and it slipped causing her like problems, that Craftsman should pay for those teeth being "too" sharp?
Another question arises: Just what level of heat / cold does any court believe is "unsafe" for Jane Doe vs John Smith? Reference, for query: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81189399.pdf
Thanks for the better enlightenment, but my point was that coffee is normally hot and paper-cups have been known to leak or fall apart, not greed on Stella's part.
That said, would one tend to argue that had she held a chainsaw (not running) across her lap and it slipped causing her like problems, that Craftsman should pay for those teeth being "too" sharp?
Another question arises: Just what level of heat / cold does any court believe is "unsafe" for Jane Doe vs John Smith? Reference, for query: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81189399.pdf
(1)
(0)
COL Randall C.
PFC Edgar Mosier - Agree - A lack of common sense should not be a defense in making yourself a candidate for the Darwin Award. However, a lack of common sense should not absolve a company's product or policy that is deliberately unsafe to consumers either.
To your question, "would one tend to argue that had she held a chainsaw (not running) across her lap and it slipped causing her like problems, that Craftsman should pay for those teeth being "too" sharp?" - Nope. Same way as I wouldn't argue that you need a warning label on a bat not to hit yourself in the head with it.
However I WOULD argue that if the way Craftsman packaged the chainsaw and when someone opened the box there were 700 instances where it deeply lacerate the hand of the individual opening the box, they yes, Craftsman should be responsible for ignoring those situations as "the cost of doing business" regardless of the argument that "it's common sense there is something sharp in the box".
The point with the coffee lawsuit was not that she didn't use common sense, but that coffee was heated to an unsafe level that gave her 3rd degree burns in a situation where it shouldn't - regardless if common sense was used or not - and ignored repeated issues where injuries had happened (hey, 'only' 700 injuries from this out of the millions of cups of coffee we sell).
To your question, "would one tend to argue that had she held a chainsaw (not running) across her lap and it slipped causing her like problems, that Craftsman should pay for those teeth being "too" sharp?" - Nope. Same way as I wouldn't argue that you need a warning label on a bat not to hit yourself in the head with it.
However I WOULD argue that if the way Craftsman packaged the chainsaw and when someone opened the box there were 700 instances where it deeply lacerate the hand of the individual opening the box, they yes, Craftsman should be responsible for ignoring those situations as "the cost of doing business" regardless of the argument that "it's common sense there is something sharp in the box".
The point with the coffee lawsuit was not that she didn't use common sense, but that coffee was heated to an unsafe level that gave her 3rd degree burns in a situation where it shouldn't - regardless if common sense was used or not - and ignored repeated issues where injuries had happened (hey, 'only' 700 injuries from this out of the millions of cups of coffee we sell).
(2)
(0)
PFC Edgar Mosier
COL Randall C. - Agreed, again.
But, being we're both Veterans, should businesses not be allowed whatever latitudes that their government is given?
I mean we know that the military did hire bean-counters during "Nam, expecting X kills per Y bullets fired, and the like. And, don't start me on the Social Security, just let me say that my disabled wife couldn't get SSDI, due to her faltering hips (I couldn't afford her surgery and we didn't have any VA disability benefits), and Mom died of cancer, while she complained about her insides.
Again, our Justice system fails all of us...
But, being we're both Veterans, should businesses not be allowed whatever latitudes that their government is given?
I mean we know that the military did hire bean-counters during "Nam, expecting X kills per Y bullets fired, and the like. And, don't start me on the Social Security, just let me say that my disabled wife couldn't get SSDI, due to her faltering hips (I couldn't afford her surgery and we didn't have any VA disability benefits), and Mom died of cancer, while she complained about her insides.
Again, our Justice system fails all of us...
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
It's going to be an interesting argument. I see positives and negatives on both sides.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google