As far the cigarette thing flies, the US military subsidized the tobacco industry by buying ciggarettes and selling them to soldiers cheap. This went on way after WW2.
That new show on the history channel “Tactical to Practical” should be sued.
Kmg365, the First Amendment is not an issue in product liability cases. You don’t have a constitutional defense against someone in this situation. First, the First Amendment applies only to government restrictions on speech. Second, there are no special protections against a tort action just because the act complained of is a “speech” act.
acsenray, I absolutely agree that the First Amendment is not an issue in product liability cases. However, the courts – as a government entity – cannot penalize someone for exercising their freedom of speech just b/c a plaintiff brings an actionable claim against them alleging foreseeability of harm.
Also, what I meant to say is that product liability cases are one type of case – which the Air Force commercial is decidedly a poor example of – while the First Amendment defense is a perfectly legitimate defense for media and producers of shows like “Jackass” to defend their right to say basically anything they want to without interference of the government, i.e., the courts.
So, in short, you have product liability issues on one hand, and First Amendment issues on the other – two separate and totally different issues that while equally valid, will invariably run counter to each other in “TV-made-me-do-it” injury lawsuits like “Jackass” copycat incidents.
My jury experiences are limited and may be atypical, but I can tell you that a lot more than just facts goes into the decisions of jurors. Emotion, hunches, grudges, prejudice, etc. all are in play.
This is not a correct statement of the law. A court enforcing a judgment in a civil matter is not a government actor for the purposes of First Amendment law.
who said there was a judgment?
Kmg365, then what exactly do you think the court is prohibited from doing? Hearing a case? Entering a judgment against you?
There are many kinds of actions in which the tortious act may be a form of speech – privacy, defamation, intentional torts, negligence, strict liability, etc.
There are defenses to these kinds of torts, and some of them (for example, with regard to defamation) may be related to the concept of free speech from a policy point of view and courts are for the most part prohibited from imposing prior restraint on speech. However, in general, a free speech right under the First Amendment is not a defense to such claims.
The statement I quoted above –
– is not correct. In a tort action, the defendant does not have the defense of “I am exercising my freedom of speech.” And you bet the court will not be barred by the First Amendment from hearing a case, ruling against you, or enforcing a judgment against you just because the tortious act you have committted was in the form of speech. And in this case, the court is not “a government agent.”
Enough legal BS-I asked a SIMPLE question> An 18-year old sees the Airforce commercial, and has dreams of being a pilot. Kid sees ad, goes out skateboarding. Crashed into wall, becomes quadrapalegic-can parents sue airforce for damages?
ralph,
I don’t think that there is a case that SOME lawyer, somewhere won’t take. Yes I guess you could sue. But as members of the bar have pointed out here you would not get very far.
The commercial shows boys in various activities that are not unique to this commercial. So how could you claim that this ad made your son skateboard? He could have seen it in a hundred other places.
You can sue but you won’t get any damages.