Civil Liability of Movie Producers
The most persuasive argument in response to the plaintiffs in the cases is that there is no criminal liability to producers and filmmakers from the actions of viewers by associating the actions of the person with the viewing of the content. The argument makes sense as it is the personal initiative of the person to commit criminal activities from their consciousness and not a civil liability of the producers and filmmakers. I agree with the theory. It is clear that the arguments of Catherine MacKinnon and others about movies and other media caused the viewer to commit criminal activity caused by watching the media, does not have any civil liability. This because the individuals have free will to think and perform actions that they want and the movie producers should not be associated with the effects of their criminal actions. From my perspective, I agree with the theory that the movie producers are not liable to the actions of individuals as people are not forced or controlled to perform these criminal actions.
The theory of civil liability that holds movie producers liable for the criminal acts of individuals that view their movies and the theory of civil liability that hold gun manufacturers responsible for crimes committed by individuals using the guns bears a passing resemblance. Those who embrace the second amendment have a better understanding of the civil liability that those embrace the first amendment. In my opinion, as the same in the case of gun manufacturers should not be liable for the crimes committed with the guns they manufacture, the movie producers should not be liable for actions of persons that view the movie and perform the activities in the real world.
Gander, Eric M. “Civil Liberty Versus Civil Liability: Robert O’Neil Defends the First Amendment.” UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW 5 (2003): 1321-1344.