If we remove that it become: funnelling a market towards the further consumption of your product. I.e. marketing
And if a company’s marketing campaign is found to be indirectly responsible for a kid shooting up a grocery store, I’m sure we’ll be seeing a repeat of this with that company being the one with a court case being brought against them, what even is this argument?
Isnt the entire gun market indirectly responsible, what about the food the shooters ate? Cant we use the same logic to prssecute anyone of any religion cos most of the religiouse texts support the killing of some group of people.
Its convenient to ask what the argument is when u ignore 60% of it
Did you even read the article we’re discussing, or are you just reading the comments and getting mad?
- No decision has been made. This is simply a judge denying the companies’ motion to have this thrown out before going to trial.
- This is very much different than “the gun market” being indirectly responsible. This is the equivalent of “the gun market” constantly sending a person pamphlets, calling them, emailing them, whatever else, with propaganda until they ultimately decided to act on it. If that was happening, I think we’d be having the same conversation about that, and whether they should be held accountable.
- Whether they’re actually responsible or not (or whether any group is) can be determined in court following all the usual methods. A company getting to say “That’s ridiculous, we’re above scrutiny” is dangerous, and that’s effectively what they were trying to do (which was denied by this judge.)
