Quote:
Originally Posted by Thescout13
Ok. Considering I'm an attorney that works in this space, let me just say that you are misreading what I am writing.
Never did I say it was "illegal" to record a persons' license plate. There are first amendment concerns when recording police officers that's not at play here. Nevertheless, I never implied criminal liability or wiretapping laws. There may, however, be civil liability in a two way consent state depending if your recording on a dash cam does or does not fall under an exception.
You are conflating two different ideas. News organizations, people recording celebrities, etc have first amendment considerations/defenses which do not apply to that situation. However, there are laws against recording people without there consent, e.g., children of celebrities in California. On top of that, even news organizations blur plates etc unless there is a confirmed indictment etc and even then they are cautious (see reason why below).
In addition, no shit they would lose a defamation case (which I even said in my earlier post in a parenthetical) but, given how litigious our society is and people are (see, e.g., orange child in the oval) people sue for defamation all of the time without having a leg to stand on. Courts don't just throw those cases out on a whim, you would need to file a motion to dismiss, which, in a defamation case, can run you up to $50-100k just to have a lawyer file a halfway decent brief.
So, and I say this again, why run the risk?
At the end of the day dude, you do you, but don't expect everyone to have the same risk profile as you. Because getting sued, even if the other side will never win, still costs more than the average person has the ability to afford in defending in the preliminary motion stage. So if blurring out a plate on a video helps reduce that risk, then let him do that. When it's your video, you do whatever you want.
|
Trump derangement syndrome confirmed
