Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird
A Webster's defination is not a legal defination, of course a court would hear the case. The video, just like so many videos posted of "victims" of police brutality, starts 1/2 way or more into the episode. As the lady admits in the posting she had been in front of the truck for 3 minutes. And couldn't get over becuase of the trucks. Maybe is for those 3 minutes she was driving exactly the same speed as the slower truck you see in the video. Then she sped up, started recording, and got her money shot.
Why do you think news agencies blur faces when just recording facts in a public place? Or they get a release from those they filmed.
|
You're rationalizing (unsuccessfully). The words posted by you were
Quote:
|
posting up to social media for no other reason then to shame the guy is pretty much the definition of defamation.
|
You didn't further qualify the statement. Regardless, the legal definition of defamation relies on the English definition, which requires that a person bring false testimony against someone else with the intent to discredit them. There isn't an interpretation of defamation that can be fulfilled by sharing a recording of true events.
Where the video begins and the actions of the woman filming are of no import when determining the fault of the truck wreck. The woman could have been doing 5 mph for 6 hrs in the fast lane all while giving the truck driver the bird, and he still remains 100% liable for his actions and the resulting crash.
There can be no logical argument brought against this fact. Any disagreement is purely emotional. I can sympathize with the truck driver because I have been that angry at other drivers before, and I have fantasized passing inconsiderate drivers while leaving them in a cloud of my smoke, but this is not a reasonable action and I cannot blame inconsiderate people for my feelings of anger.