|
Anti-gun people in Hollywood have long claimed that their violent movies and TV shows could not possibly be at fault in pushing unstable people over the edge into committing violence. They shout "First Amendment," and most anti-gun groups have stood by them. The Connecticut case could be a very interesting precedent if the plaintiffs win. If advertising by a gun maker can push people into violence, then how could anyone claim that a violent movie does not do the same? The fallout could be very far ranging from this case.
|