The only person liable here is the shooter.
On the very specific point of liability, while the shooter is the specific person that pulled the trigger, is there no liability for those that radicalised the person into turning into a shooter? If I was selling foodstuffs that poisoned people I’d be held to account by various regulatory bodies, yet pushing out material to poison people’s minds goes for the most part unpunished. If a preacher at a local religious centre was advocating terrorism, they’d face charges.
The UK government has a whole ream of context about this: …service.gov.uk/…/prevent-strategy-review.pdf
Google’s “common carrier” type of defence takes you only so far, as it’s not a purely neutral party in terms, as it “recommends”, not merely “delivers results”, as @joe points out. That recommendation should come with some editorial responsibility.
Kinglink@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.
Radicalizing someone to do this isn’t a crime. Freedom of speech isn’t absolute but unless someone gives them actual orders it would still be protected.
Don’t apply UK’s lack of freedom of speech in American courts.
cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 1 year ago
Do you not remember those two girls who tried to sue McDonald’s for making them fat?
It prompted a movie and a book…
Kinglink@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And how did that case end?
Hint: Not well You try to sue anyone for anything. There’s just no guarentee it’ll work, and it didn’t there.
cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 1 year ago
so?
the case in OP is still going on so we don’t know how it will end yet. I was just pointing out something that already happened cause the metaphor used matched that case. Like, it was funny to mention something like that when it already happened and we know how it played out.
We don’t know how the case in OP is gonna play out. You can’t predict the future.