As to a product harmed by false information, silicone brest implants were inaccuarely labeled as being responsible for a whole host of ailments. It was only after Dow Corning filed for bankrupcy due to lawsuites that research came out showing that there was no negative effect (at least for the ailments claimed).
A *huge* company responsible for some of the greatest material science breakthroughs in the last 50 year was forced to file for bankrupcy because mass hysteria broke out without any hard facts.
- Garrett
Well done, guy.
I'd think there at least SHOULD be some way to nail somebody for knowingly putting false info in a 'news' story, or using bad info because they didn't bother to check on it, but how? I flat don't know. I'd think it would touch on the 'malice aforethought' problem with going after a news clown for problems.
the 'shooting in eights' and 'U.S. Rifle' links don't work
Mark,
The links should be fixed. I'll post my thoughts later.
You said: "For the non lawyers out there - can you think of examples where a favorite product, food, activity has been unfairly curtailed because of the distribution of false information - either by the media or more frightenly by the government? Does anyone know anyone who was physically harmed because of a reliance on falsly published information?"
Three words: "Wendy's Finger Chili Incident." OK, I know it's four words, but the crazy broad cost Wendy's $2.5 million, and is as good an example as any, and recent, too.
A side note: Ronnie Barret's name is spelled with an "e," not an "a."
To get into rollong your own ammo it isn't necessary to construct a bench. Just find a couple of two by six or two by eight plank ends, bolt your press on those and C-clamp those plank ends onto a halfway sturdy desk or table.
If, like me, you have several presses for various different jobs it's the way to keep your benchtop uncluttered when you do get around to a full bench.
You have an UNCLUTTERED workbench?!?
You tellin' us the truth, boy?
Countertop....
....your ultimate "1911".... that's really an M-1991-A1, isn't it?
Plastic trigger is a dead giveaway.
Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX
(proud owner of a blue 1991-A1 Commander!)
McDonald's coffee, and all other fast-food coffee, after they were sued for serving, get this, HOT COFFEE! And more insulting, the cold coffee contained a warning that it might be hot.
Last Sunday evening (May 29th) CBS '60 Minutes' rebroadcast their put down of the 50 calibre rifle. The program was originally broadcast in January, so they are really laying on the propaganda.
Well done and thanks for taking the time to fill in for me on this holiday weekend. I am just getting online for the first time since Friday--I spent my weekend installing a new flagpole for the Gullybabe's father, a distinguished veteran.
As for the question of the week:
I see serious First Amendment issues. I am no lawyer (yet), so take what I say for the uninformed pap that it is. But barring a showing of actual malice on the part of the informer, it looks like a spreader of disinformation is pretty well shielded against lawsuits. Even though wrong information can cause a real tangible harm (for instance, loss of money), any rule allowing recovery would probably cross that invisible threshold and create the dreaded "chilling effect" on free speech. After all, if people risk losing their own money for being wrong, they are less likely to speak out, even when it is truth.
Consider this: if you take a case to court in a civil trial, you only need to convince one more than half the jurors that you are only slightly more correct than your opponent in order to win. That means that, for all intents and purposes, someone who is actually wrong doesn't have much of a legal hurdle to leap in order to win unjustly. If you are a spreader of information, and your information is CORRECT but causes someone else harm, how hard will it be for that person to (falsely) accuse you of information liability and win over a jury of your so-called "peers"? God help you if the other side has someone like Dershowitz on his side.
Considering this, will people who have CORRECT information that could potentially harm people with deep pockets and great lawyers be afraid to open up?
Think about spilling the beans on politicians! Talk about people with resources... who would dare raise legitimate issues that could harm the careers of people like, oh, John Kerry?
So I have a hard time with information liability--on the one hand, I absolutely believe as a policy matter (and a justice matter) that people should be liable for the harm they cause. But what happens when implementing a system to allow just that opens the door to the innocent being run over by the powerful?
Going way back to the 1980s, "60 Minutes" did a number on the Audi 5000 automobiles with automatic transmissions, saying that the cars would accelerate by themselves while the drivers claimed to be standing on the brakes. This killed Audi in America for a while. It was shown that these incidents were driver error (foot on wrong pedal).
Silicone Breast Implants, McDonalds coffee (though in truth the award was overturned on appeal), asbestos, tobacco, and mold are all expamples of run away tort liability issues - though, I am unsure which (with the exception of mold) can really be blamed on a campaign of media mis-information.
For an industry trade association to attack on behalf of a general product you certainly run into some standing problems, though I suspect that an industry - say the .50 caliber rifle mfgs association - could file suit on behalf of all its members and using the market place liability principles first developed in large scale vaccination cases pin liability on all media outlets for tortious interference with business and defamation of products.
There are hurdles to this though - and no gullyborg I see no first amendment issues (and politicians are generally exempt from defemation actions) - the most significant would be proving damages as well as convincing a skeptical judiciary that there is some causal connection between what one random paper says and a general downward trend in sales. For .50 Caliber mfgs, in fact, the evidence would point the other way - that they are seeing great spikes in sales everytime the NY Times calls for their ban.
Still, the long term implications of continued NY Times editorials being picked up by small papers nationwide will be to brainwash the electorate into calling for a .50 caliber ban (and other examples can be pointed too - tobacco for one) so it might be possible to enjoy the action now to hold off future irreprable damages later.
Perhaps the most egregious example occuring now are the continued calls to do something about global warming - which if its even happening at all is not anthropogenic but rather part of a large scale fundraising campaign by the environmental scare industry working in conjunction with anti free market socialists in Congress (read: most Democrats) as well as the few others who are willing to throw principles out the window to gather a few more votes (read: McCain and Leiberman, Lindsey Graham, et al).
The damages being caused though are real and evident in the over reporting and over dramatization of every two bit storm. Its a boy who cried wolf phenomena. In the last few years I have had two close family members ignore warnings of hurricane forcasters because the dozens of other warnings all turned out to be fruitless or overbroad. In one case, my brother decided not to evacuate Wilminton, NC and ended up stranded there for a week - lucky that he had his kayak with him to be able to get around. In the other instance, last year my grandfather decided against evacuate his condo on Indian River Plantation even though the weather forcasters were calling for huge hurricanes. In both instances they had listened and responded to the warnings from the weather channel and weather service in the past only to be embarrased by how unimpresive the hurricanes were - so that they (and many others) were unable to ascertain for themselves the real risk. In that instance - when the main stream media was needed and could have played a constructive role in helping society - it failed because its credibility (and also local politicans) in such matters had long been quashed.
Society needs to develop a way to deal with this kind of situation. I think the calls for the .50 caliber ban and constant trumping of climate change are only the latest examples.
If you are going to publish information - you ought to be dam sure its correct - or state upfront why it may be faulty. Don't just run the Brady press release. If you do, as a TV Station you should be subjected to immediate and swift penalities. Heck, I'd say the same thing about a TV station (broadcasting over public airwaves - cable is a different story, though equally troubling) running NRA or Chamber of Commerce op eds.
There is a saying here in DC about people who dont get it anymore - they believe their own PR. For myself, it provides a great coutnerweight to whatever cause I am caught up in at the moment. Stepping back, I always ask myself what are the problems with my PR and what is the real situation. If you can't tell reality from a Press Release, you are doomed. Sadly, thats what is happening to the MSM.
Mor ranting later. Its back to vacation time for me.
Commenting by HaloScan
