## Facts

- Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc. (and its parent, Omega Group, Ltd.) published a paid personal-services advertisement stating: “GUN FOR HIRE … professional mercenary … very private … other special skills … All jobs considered,” with the advertiser’s contact information.
- The advertiser, Michael Savage, received numerous responses seeking violent crimes (including murder, assault, and kidnapping), though he also performed at least one lawful job.
- Bruce Gastwirth, seeking to kill his business partner Richard Braun, and an associate contacted Savage through the advertisement after earlier attempts failed.
- Savage joined a plan with others to kill Braun; a co-conspirator shot and killed Richard Braun, and Braun’s teenage son was wounded during the attack.
- Braun’s sons sued the magazine and parent corporation, alleging negligent publication of an advertisement that, on its face, created an unreasonable risk of violent criminal solicitation.
- After a jury trial, the plaintiffs prevailed on negligence; the jury awarded roughly $4.375 million and found negligence and malice.

## Issues

1. Whether a publisher owes a duty of reasonable care and may be liable in negligence for injuries to third parties when an advertisement’s content creates an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of violent criminal activity.
2. Whether imposing negligence liability for publishing the “Gun for Hire” advertisement violates the First Amendment.
3. Whether the intentional criminal acts of third parties were superseding causes that broke proximate causation as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The evidence supported the jury’s finding that the advertisement was facially suggestive of illegal violence and created an unreasonable, foreseeable risk that a reasonable publisher would recognize.
- The First Amendment did not bar liability because the publication was commercial advertising closely connected to illegal activity and the liability standard was narrowly limited to facially dangerous advertisements.
- The conspirators’ criminal acts were not superseding causes as a matter of law because the contract-killing harm was within the scope of foreseeable risks created by publishing such an advertisement.

## Legal Principles

- A publisher may owe a duty to exercise reasonable care not to publish an advertisement whose explicit terms present a clearly identifiable, unreasonable risk of serious harm to the public.
- Foreseeability can be established when an advertisement’s plain language invites unlawful violence (e.g., “gun for hire,” secrecy, “all jobs considered”) such that a reasonable publisher would anticipate criminal solicitation.
- Commercial speech that proposes or materially facilitates illegal transactions receives no First Amendment protection to the extent it is integral to unlawful conduct.
- Intervening intentional crimes do not necessarily sever proximate causation when the criminal act is the type of harm that made the defendant’s conduct foreseeably dangerous.

## Conclusion

The court upheld negligence liability against a magazine for publishing a “Gun for Hire” advertisement whose wording made the risk of murder-for-hire solicitation reasonably foreseeable, holding that the First Amendment did not immunize the publisher and that the resulting criminal acts fell within the foreseeable scope of risk rather than operating as superseding causes.


Braun v. Soldier of Fortune Mag., Inc., 968 F.2d 1110 (11th Cir. 1992)