Parsons v Colt Manufacturing

[Rich2018]

Literally all of them.

Tobacco products industry ?

 

[EdwinWillers]

All of them have that immunity, the problem is that gun-banners are rabid they would stop at nothing to get rid of guns that it must be codified into law.

When is the last time you heard about Louisville slugger getting sued because someone got beat with a bat?

...and why stop at Louisville Slugger, why not go all the way and prosecute those who grow the ash, maple, and birch trees used to make those heinous weapons of mass destruction?

 

[Rich2018]

That wasn't the conversation we were having...

You try to dodge again

You said:

All internet communication hosting platforms. Twitter, Facebook ect. Section 230, that third parties posting on said platforms, such hosting platforms are not liable for what is posted.

Can Facebook show images of child porn with impunity ?

Note: It was you who brought up Facebook - not please answer the question.

You are the one who failed yet agian, when you continue to support his argument that the tobacco industry was lying.

It lied in its defense
In court, the plaintiff argued that the tobacco industry's products caused death through cancer
The tobacco industry said that its products didn't cause cancer
They were found to be lying and lost several high profile lawsuits

So the tobacco industry DID lie, but that was NOT what it was sued over
At least try to understand the difference

You fail
Try again.

 

[Fishking]

Tobacco products industry ?

Can people still sue them today for getting cancer?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

what other industry is ever sued by leftwing scum because a criminal misuses a lawfully sold product?

People that call people "scum"....are sc....oh forget it I'm not even gonna say it. I wont get down there in the muck and hog slop with you Turtle. I'd only get filthy, and you'd love it.

 

[Rich2018]

Can people still sue them today for getting cancer?

Recent Developments in Tobacco Litigation​

In recent years, several key court decisions have paved the way for a raft of individual lawsuits against tobacco companies and have opened the door for class action lawsuits that focus on light cigarettes.

Individual Lawsuits in Florida​

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court threw out a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of 700,000 smokers and their families against tobacco companies. In its ruling, the court found that tobacco companies knowingly sold dangerous products and kept smoking health risks concealed, but that the case could not proceed as a class action. Instead, the court ruled that each case must be proven individually.

This ruling paved the way for over 8,000 smokers and their families to bring individual lawsuits against the tobacco companies. By 2015, according to RJ Reynolds regulatory filings, the company faced jury verdicts totaling almost $300 million, although many of those cases are in various stages of appeal.

Tobacco and Cigarette Litigation: History & Trends

Learn about the history of Tobacco lawsuits, and read our update covering recent liability trends of cigarette/e-cigarette manufacturers in 2022.

www.nolo.com

 

[Fishking]

Recent Developments in Tobacco Litigation​

In recent years, several key court decisions have paved the way for a raft of individual lawsuits against tobacco companies and have opened the door for class action lawsuits that focus on light cigarettes.

Individual Lawsuits in Florida​

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court threw out a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of 700,000 smokers and their families against tobacco companies. In its ruling, the court found that tobacco companies knowingly sold dangerous products and kept smoking health risks concealed, but that the case could not proceed as a class action. Instead, the court ruled that each case must be proven individually.

This ruling paved the way for over 8,000 smokers and their families to bring individual lawsuits against the tobacco companies. By 2015, according to RJ Reynolds regulatory filings, the company faced jury verdicts totaling almost $300 million, although many of those cases are in various stages of appeal.

Tobacco and Cigarette Litigation: History & Trends

Learn about the history of Tobacco lawsuits, and read our update covering recent liability trends of cigarette/e-cigarette manufacturers in 2022.

www.nolo.com

So they are being sued because they lied and covered up information. What did the gun companies lie and cover up? Did they mislead anyone? Did their products malfunction or not work properly that caused injury? Do the victims of the parade attack in Wisconsin get to sue Ford because he used their truck?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Can Facebook show images of child porn with impunity ?

Note: It was you who brought up Facebook - not please answer the question.

Pornography has nothing to do with section 230, as its Federal law that you cannot intentionally show porn to a minor under 18 on an internet site.

Facebook makes its platform available to minors at minimum 13 years old.

It's not illegal for 18 years or older to post comments or even upload pornography on a porn site. Which even porn sites would still have protections under section 230.

You keep on adding hypothetical strawman for situations that would never happen to save face on a political argument you sorely lost.

Now you have two arguments you lost, but I'm sure you are going to throw out more strawman in secession.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Did their products malfunction or not work properly that caused injury?

No, the guns worked exactly as they were designed and manufactured to do, killing LOTS of people.
Guns are totally awesome. People: NOT SO MUCH. Am I right Fish? AMIRITE?

 

[Rich2018]

So they are being sued because they lied and covered up information. What did the gun companies lie and cover up? Did they mislead anyone? Did their products malfunction or not work properly that caused injury? Do the victims of the parade attack in Wisconsin get to sue Ford because he used their truck?

No they were not sued for lying. They were sued for what their products DID.

Like if you murder someone, you are tried for murder, not for denying it in court.

Learn the difference.

 

[Rich2018]

Pornography has nothing to do with section 230, as its Federal law that you cannot intentionally show porn to a minor under 18 on an internet site.

Facebook makes its platform available to minors at minimum 13 years old.

It's not illegal for 18 years or older to post comments or even upload pornography on a porn site. Which even porn sites would still have protections under section 230.

You keep on adding hypothetical strawman for situations that would never happen to save face on a political argument you sorely lost.

Now you have two arguments you lost, but I'm sure you are going to throw out more strawman in secession.

So can Facebook display images of child pornography or not ?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

So can Facebook display images of child pornography or not ?

So do internet sites have legal protection from third parties posting on their platform?

 

[Fishking]

No, the guns worked exactly as they were designed and manufactured to do, killing LOTS of people.
Guns are totally awesome. People: NOT SO MUCH. Am I right Fish? AMIRITE?

Yeah...guns are made for killing things. That's their literal design, and they are quite cool, imo. People? Thy do tend to bad. It's not like we needed guns to kill each other.

 

[Fishking]

No they were not sued for lying. They were sued for what their products DID.

Like if you murder someone, you are tried for murder, not for denying it in court.

Learn the difference.

Nope...they were sued for lying. There is a reason why their products have warnings on them, so if those problems happen you can't sue them for it, so it's out in the open and upfront. If they hadn't covered up information and instead made it public knowledge and added it to w/e warning they were required to then they wouldn't be sued.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

No they were not sued for lying. They were sued for what their products DID.

Like if you murder someone, you are tried for murder, not for denying it in court.

Learn the difference.

They were sued because of misleading advertising ( NOTE: The very reasons the courts allowed Remmington to be sued ) or flat out lying of the effects of cigarettes.

If they were sued because of the health effects, it's likely such companies would be shut down already by the government for that reason.

In 2006, the American Cancer Society and other plaintiffs won a major court case against Big Tobacco. Judge Gladys Kessler found tobacco companies guilty of lying to the American public about the deadly effects of cigarettes and secondhand smoke.

Your so bad at debating, it makes our job of proving it so much easier.

Big Tobacco Lawsuit

www.fightcancer.org

 

[RF667799]

No they were not sued for lying. They were sued for what their products DID.

Like if you murder someone, you are tried for murder, not for denying it in court.

Learn the difference.

You see, cigarettes were advertised that their proper use is to light them on fire, and inhale those combustion products into one's lungs.

Guns are not advertised that their proper use is to murder people.

 

[BahamaBob]

But those companies are making products that are not designed to kill with.

Clubs were used to kill people long before guns existed. Just because an alternate use for them was found, does not mean they are still not clubs.

 

[TurtleDude]

People that call people "scum"....are sc....oh forget it I'm not even gonna say it. I wont get down there in the muck and hog slop with you Turtle. I'd only get filthy, and you'd love it.

shall we do a review of some of the many infantile comments you have made? and yes, the politicians and organizations who/that want to disarm honest Americans are scum in my book

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Yeah...guns are made for killing things. That's their literal design, and they are quite cool, imo. People? Thy do tend to bad.

I see ZERO red flags there Fish, you are obviously a "good guy" that should have just as many Mass Murder Machines and all the ammunition that you can possibly wheelbarrow away.
Nothing to be concerned about at all. Just a great wholesome outlook. PRAISE GUN!!!!!

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Clubs were used to kill people long before guns existed. Just because an alternate use for them was found, does not mean they are still not clubs.

Dont forget cars, swimming pools, and stairs too Bob.

 

[TurtleDude]

I see ZERO red flags there Fish, you are obviously a "good guy" that should have just as many Mass Murder Machines and all the ammunition that you can possibly wheelbarrow away.
Nothing to be concerned about at all. Just a great wholesome outlook. PRAISE GUN!!!!!

at what point does a firearm transform from a firearm to a "Mass murder machine" since you seem to have a serious case of the goos over "Mass murder machines"

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

shall we do a review of some of the many infantile comments you have made?

I'm afraid you must have me confused with another poster Turtle. That doesnt sound like me.

 

[Rich2018]

So do internet sites have legal protection from third parties posting on their platform?

A site like this could have someone post an illegal images (or video), but would face no legal action if the site's administrators subsequently removed it in good time.

However if it was left unchecked, the site would face legal action.

 

[Rich2018]

Nope...they were sued for lying. There is a reason why their products have warnings on them, so if those problems happen you can't sue them for it, so it's out in the open and upfront. If they hadn't covered up information and instead made it public knowledge and added it to w/e warning they were required to then they wouldn't be sued.

No they weren't.

 

[BahamaBob]

Dont forget cars, swimming pools, and stairs too Bob.

I fail to see any relevance. However if your goal was to post something stupid, you succeeded.