I don’t get it. Seems like purely a stunt. What plausible legal violation could there have been?
If you want to and a company indirectly involved wouldn’t the gun manufacturer be more liable?
If you want to and a company indirectly involved wouldn’t the gun manufacturer be more liable?
The kind of referral from the Governor's office is not a criminal referral but more of a policy referral; while there are some kinds of legal liability that might be involved, that's not really even superficially the point of the referral and the legal authority under which it was made: understanding issues contributing to a public safety problem is.
The AG is, yes, the top prosecutorial authority of the state, but that isn't the whole of their role.
> If you want to and a company indirectly involved wouldn’t the gun manufacturer be more liable?
Probably not; there is probably far less evidence that the gun manufacturer knew, or should reasonably have known, about the specific act it was contributing to.
> Probably not; there is probably far less evidence that the gun manufacturer knew...
What acts do you think civilians use an AR-15 style rifle for? What percentage of AR-15 holders shoot a person versus the percentage of social media users?
“…New York Executive Law Section 63(8), which permits the attorney general to investigate matters concerning public peace, public safety, and public justice and to subpoena witnesses and compel the production of documents.”
"We should better monitor these sites" might be an entirely valid conclusion.
It’s not even close.
I do not want our civil liberties eroded in any way because of mass shootings. Government always uses emotional tragedies to grab authoritarian power.
Be careful that you're not inadvertently asking for social media to be regulated more like cars.
Fortunately, however, there are plenty of countries that have fewer mass shootings and arguably better protection of civil liberties than the US, so they might provide some inspiration.
I mean, to take my car out in public, I'm required to have a license, registration, inspection, various safety devices, and follow a variety of usage rules.
Across the whole nation we have a fairly substantial set of restrictions on what you can and can't own, regardless of whether or not you only ever use it on private property (there are no such restrictions for cars).
So the net effect would be mostly no change in public and a massive net loosening of restrictions in private.
Personally I'm fine with this. But I think you'll probably be clamoring to have the status qou back as soon as your local extremists start posting youtube videos of 14yos firing mortars at their summer BBQ.
Not buying it.
The airbag requirements certainly have nothing to do with it, either.
> Government always uses emotional tragedies to grab authoritarian power
Is that what you think is happening here? If so, could you please elaborate on why you think this?
* "We should better monitor these sites" might be an entirely valid conclusion.*
No, we should not have to monitor sites for the minuscule chance that a psychopath is planning a mass shooting. Senators are already pushing this type of surveillance on social media, it's a matter of time before this type of surveillance is used against thought crimes, and people that don't agree with the establishment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...
19 384 homicides in total.
It is probably a better comparison than car deaths.
But if your argument hinges on "mass shootings aren't a big deal" than let's agree to disagree.
False positives are already awful without adding legal liability for not acting to the mix.
Also, check out the cases where Section 230 has been used [1]. Without it, sites would have to prevent defamation (i.e., they need to know whether any content is untrue). Libraries would not provide computers connected to the internet.
Repealing Section 230 is a "common sense" proposal that falls apart when considering the actual results. If there's a good proposal for a replacement, I haven't seen it.
People tend to bend over backwards to give Toyota the benefit of the doubt where possible.
If it was a FCA product they'd be out for blood.
Not that I’m saying what that individual did wasn’t 100% wrong but any politician who is worth their beans will not let a tragedy go to waste.
I make the point not to be sarcastic but to note that there really are paradoxes and nuances within the concept of free speech. Trying to establish hard bound rules is more likely to lead to abuse then an honest discussion that acknowledges ambiguity.
Yes. All Cretans are liars.
“Im gonna kill all you fools” when talking about the company kickball tournament shouldn’t result in a swat team breaking down your front door.
1. The companies that run these giant platforms know about the problems they cause
2. Those companies are hiding data about the problem
3. Those companies are doing nothing to fix the situation
4. Those companies are actually doing everything they can to make the situation worse
Even worse than oil companies and lead in gasoline, these companies absolutely rely on generating hate, because that generates clicks/doomscrolling which brings them revenue. So they will continue to do nothing about this problem until they are forced to. The tool to force them to do this is government.