[post_break]

Not a valid comparison? It's the exact comparison. What about suing the truck manufacturers when that terrorist ran over a bunch of people, or Boeing for 9/11, etc. Just because they are a manufacturer of firearms doesnt excuse them from this ideology.

[pyre]

Facebook and Twitter did not build the tools used to enact the shooting. The claim is that Facebook and Twitter allowed their platform to contain things that influenced the perpetrators. This is closer to blaming Charlie Hebdo for the terrorist attack against them, because the content they published clearly spawned the attack.

[mter]

This is not a valid comparison because there is literally a federal law protecting gun manufacturers. There is not a similar law protecting twitter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...

[reynoldsbd]

Lack of a federal law doesn't necessarily make that comparison invalid; perhaps there should even be an analogous law protecting "free speech platforms" that is rooted in the first amendment, similar to how the law you cite it ostensibly rooted in the second.

[thesmallestcat]

No, the exact comparison would be a similar suit against the gun manufacturers for the San Bernardino shooting.

[x3n0ph3n3]

Except they used illegally modified guns that were against the law to own in California (and many other states without the proper license).

[bduerst]

A tweet isn't designed to kill someone. A truck isn't designed to kill someone.

Unless you think an AR15 is specifically designed for killing exotic animals.

[post_break]

And a knife isn't designed to kill someone. And here in Texas we use AR15s for killing wild hogs every single day.

[bduerst]

A knife isn't designed to kill someone, neither is an axe, ice pick, etc.

Wild hogs aren't exotic animals, which is why you can use normal hunting rifles, and don't need an AR15.