4 ms·
Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. So the case I was referring to earlier as a recent example, was Backpage. I think there are some key elements that need to
by bladegash 6y ago
Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. So the case I was referring to earlier as a recent example, was Backpage. I think there are some key elements that need to be met, but you can see with that case where lines can be crossed. I’m not arguing encrypted communication companies should be liable for all activities using their service. However, if a company specifically markets to criminals, in my mind, that gets really close to crossing a line.
I think it’s the difference between facilitation and knowingly facilitating. With the gun store example, if the person purchasing the weapon said “I’m going to go kill someone, can you tell me which gun would be best for that?”, the gun store would be absolutely liable if they sold them the gun.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoGun stores have expertise in 'personal protection' weapons. They sell guns to people all the time with the express intention of being easiest to use and the most fatal. I'd say, marketing to criminals seems pretty close to the line, but depending on the conversation its no closer than the 'personal protection' sale? As long as they're not advocating "use this to break laws", they're just selling privacy. Like selling a fence for your yard or padlocks for your house. No natural illegal nature to those sales. Even if they ultimately get used to conceal crimes etc.