Byers v. Edmonson Analysis by Ford Fischer | Lindsay Maizland | April 23, 2016

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

Byers v. Edmonson Analysis by Ford Fischer

by Lindsay Maizland Show/Hide
In March of 1995, Sarah Edmondson and her boyfriend Benjamin James Darras watched Natural Born Killers, then killed one person and severely injured another. When the victims' families filed suit, they named the filmmakers as a defendant and claimed that they were also responsible for inspiring the act. The court ultimately held that filmmaking is protected speech even if it may inspire violence.

EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST

Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:

MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (2/2 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/2 playlist item notes are private)
  1. 1 Show/Hide More Byers v. Edmonson Analysis by Ford Fischer
    Byers v. Edmonson Analysis by Ford Fischer
  2. 2 Show/Hide More "Natural Born Copycats" YouTube Video
    When a young couple murders one and severely injures another, do the victims have a tort against a filmmaker who potentially inspired them? In Byers v. Edmondson, the courts found that Oliver Stone could not be held liable for his film inspiring violence. This video summarizes the case and its conclusion.
Close

Playlist Information

April 23, 2016

Author Stats

Lindsay Maizland

American University

Other Playlists by Lindsay Maizland

Find Items

Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.

SEARCH
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large