Should gun manufacturers sue news outlets for slander?

[Stormy Daniels]

Let me get this straight. You think gun manufactures should sue the media for reporting on incidents such as what happened today at Youtube headquarters?

No.

Weird. That's exactly how I read it too.

Guess that's why I called it incoherent nonsense.

Then you both need to learn to read.

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps individual gun owners should sue the media for slandering them. A massive class action suit would bankrupt the whole mess.

I'll throw in $1000.

Multiply that by a million NRA members and you've got a billion dollars in lawyers fees.


Anyone know a lawyer who wants a billion dollars?

You can't class-action slander sue either But I'll take your $1000 since you have no good use for it.

 

[Pogo]

Let me get this straight. You think gun manufactures should sue the media for reporting on incidents such as what happened today at Youtube headquarters?

No.

Weird. That's exactly how I read it too.

Guess that's why I called it incoherent nonsense.

Then you both need to learn to read.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, it can't possibly be the material.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Let me get this straight. You think gun manufactures should sue the media for reporting on incidents such as what happened today at Youtube headquarters?

No.

Weird. That's exactly how I read it too.

Guess that's why I called it incoherent nonsense.

Then you both need to learn to read.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, it can't possibly be the material.

I very clearly said what I was suggesting. A lawsuit for slander based on false reporting that damages the reputation of gun manufacturers. If you did not catch that in the initial post, then you need to learn how to read.

 

[Pogo]

Let me get this straight. You think gun manufactures should sue the media for reporting on incidents such as what happened today at Youtube headquarters?

No.

"Why was today's incident at Google covered at all? "

lol

Because it's news.

And it was YouTube.

I can see the reason for asking the question --- if one considers only the result that it was a news dud.
But in the moment while it was developing, no one knew what was involved and after relentless mass shooting incidents, when you don't have those details the logical expectation is that this is another one.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

and after relentless mass shooting incidents

Another lie. Such incidents have been on the decline for decades.

 

[Pogo]

Let me get this straight. You think gun manufactures should sue the media for reporting on incidents such as what happened today at Youtube headquarters?

No.

Weird. That's exactly how I read it too.

Guess that's why I called it incoherent nonsense.

Then you both need to learn to read.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, it can't possibly be the material.

I very clearly said what I was suggesting. A lawsuit for slander based on false reporting that damages the reputation of gun manufacturers. If you did not catch that in the initial post, then you need to learn how to read.

I learned to read before I went to school, thanks. You just basically repeated the same thing. Whatever "false reporting" shows up in whatever comic book you're reading, has no bearing on the reputation of gun manufacturers. If anything it enhances their image, as the instruments used by mass shooters seem to work all too well.

Duh?

 

[Pogo]

and after relentless mass shooting incidents

Another lie. Such incidents have been on the decline for decades.

Are we on Fantasy Island?

Incoherent ipse dixit nonsense.

 

[hjmick]

Freedom of speech and freedom of press does not protect outright lies. And when it comes to coverage of gun violence many in the media are doing exactly that. Why was today's incident at Google covered at all? What about it is so significant that all the national media stopped in its tracks?

Violence happens every single day, and that has been the case for a million years. So many of the pundits keep claiming that "these incidents" are becoming more and more common in their attempts to paint the image that outlawing guns has to happen soon, otherwise the people will revolt. But it's patently false. Gun violence isn't increasing. It's been declining for decades. "These incidents" aren't becoming more common. The news is just reporting more and more of them, looking to pick any background incident it can find and elevate it to some kind of faux catastrophe. The false reporting harms the reputation of these gun manufacturers who are being vilified through lies.

A corporation can't sue for "slander". Only people can do that. And when they do they'd need evidence that the accused knew it was false and put it out intentionally. (Besides which, if the intended defendant is "the news media" --- which is an abstract concept that also can't be sued, but if it could --- the charge would be libel, not 'slander'.)

But that's just to address the title. The OP text not only fails to do that, it's a word salad of incoherent nonsense.

Haven't you heard? SCoTUS has determined that corporations are people... or some such nonsense...


Personally, I think the gun manufacturers would be better served by sitting down and not saying a GOD damned thing for the time being...

If they come out defending themselves, they're damned. If they suggest any sort of gun safety idea, they're damned... Lose, lose...

 

[Pogo]

Freedom of speech and freedom of press does not protect outright lies. And when it comes to coverage of gun violence many in the media are doing exactly that. Why was today's incident at Google covered at all? What about it is so significant that all the national media stopped in its tracks?

Violence happens every single day, and that has been the case for a million years. So many of the pundits keep claiming that "these incidents" are becoming more and more common in their attempts to paint the image that outlawing guns has to happen soon, otherwise the people will revolt. But it's patently false. Gun violence isn't increasing. It's been declining for decades. "These incidents" aren't becoming more common. The news is just reporting more and more of them, looking to pick any background incident it can find and elevate it to some kind of faux catastrophe. The false reporting harms the reputation of these gun manufacturers who are being vilified through lies.

A corporation can't sue for "slander". Only people can do that. And when they do they'd need evidence that the accused knew it was false and put it out intentionally. (Besides which, if the intended defendant is "the news media" --- which is an abstract concept that also can't be sued, but if it could --- the charge would be libel, not 'slander'.)

But that's just to address the title. The OP text not only fails to do that, it's a word salad of incoherent nonsense.

Haven't you heard? SCoTUS has determined that corporations are people... or some such nonsense...


Personally, I think the gun manufacturers would be better served by sitting down and not saying a GOD damned thing for the time being...

If they come out defending themselves, they're damned. If they suggest any sort of gun safety idea, they're damned... Lose, lose...

Yeah I was wryly alluding to that but I couldn't think of a punchline.

I can't see how gun manufacturers could possibly be complaining. Nobody's implying their products don't work.