>The author points out that the publisher of a book of mushrooms cannot be held responsible for recommending people eat poisonous mushrooms.
I don't think this is true at all. If a publisher publishes a book that includes information that is not only incorrect, but actually harmful if followed, and represents it as true/safe, then they would be liable too.
>I know I’ve discussed this case before, but it always gets lost in the mix. In Winter v. GP Putnam, the Ninth Circuit said a publisher was not liable for publishing a mushroom encyclopedia that literally “recommended” people eat poisonous mushrooms. The issue was that the publisher had no way to know that the mushroom was, in fact, inedible.
"We conclude that the defendants have no duty to investigate the accuracy of the contents of the books it publishes. A publisher may of course assume such a burden, but there is nothing inherent in the role of publisher or the surrounding legal doctrines to suggest that such a duty should be imposed on publishers. Indeed the cases uniformly refuse to impose such a duty. Were we tempted to create this duty, the gentle tug of the First Amendment and the values embodied therein would remind us of the social costs."
How odd, that's not the case for defamation, where publishers have a duty to investigate the truth of the statements they publish. What's going on in the ninth circuit?
I don't think this is true at all. If a publisher publishes a book that includes information that is not only incorrect, but actually harmful if followed, and represents it as true/safe, then they would be liable too.