The trial court where the suit was initially brought dismissed it on the grounds that the defendants were protected by the First Amendment. But, an appeals court in Louisiana reinstated the suit, allowing it to go forward to the discovery phase. The appeals court quoted at length the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc. That case involved a book publishing company, Paladin Press, that was successfully sued for wrongful death after a person who read a book published by the company—a semi-serious work that purported to be a "Hit Man" manual—used the book to murder a mother, her quadriplegic son, and a nurse.

However, cases like these did not proliferate as courts did not accept Catharine MacKinnon's theory of causation between speech and action.  The Louisiana suit involving the movie Natural Born Killers ultimately fizzled after the discovery phase, leaving Warner Brothers and Oliver Stone free of any civil liability. Additionally, a 1999 jury verdict against Warner Brothers and the Jenny Jones Show—a verdict which resulted in a massive award of over 25 million dollars—was later overturned by an appellate court in Graves v. Warner Brothers. In the end, courts have rejected a theory of liability that would hold publishers and movie and television producers responsible for harms "caused" by their "products."

After reading Dr. Gander's article on free speech and civil liability, I would like you to address three specific questions.

First, what is the argument that I think is most persuasive in responding to the plaintiffs in cases specifically like those involving the movie Natural Born Killers and the Jenny Jones show, in which it is alleged that a movie or television show caused someone to harm another? This question is not about Robert O'Neil's book per se. It is about the argument I advance as to why the theory of civil liability used by the plaintiffs in Byers v. Edmondson and Graves v. Warner Brothers should be rejected.

Second, do you agree or disagree with this theory, and why?

Third and finally, I want you to consider the theory of civil liability that would hold movie producers responsible when individuals watch their movies and then go out and commit crimes that have been depicted in those movies, and the theory of civil liability that would hold gun manufactures responsible when individuals commit crimes with the guns that those manufactures have produced. I have said that these two theories bear more than a passing resemblance to one another. Do they? Or do you think those who embrace the First Amendment have a better case for avoiding civil liability than those who embrace the Second Amendment? Or do you think the reverse: those who embrace the Second Amendment have a better case for avoiding civil liability than those who embrace the First Amendment? Or do you think that civil liability should—or should not—be dealt with similarly when it comes to both amendments?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Based on the provided information here are the responses to your three specific questions 1 The argument that is most persuasive in responding to plai... View the full answer