Defamation is an offence if constituted mainly by intention and also by wrongfulness in case of publication (SNA Attorneys, 2013). However, the most relevant point in defamation is that any reasonable person would find the case defamatory whether it in direct meaning or when it is just an insinuation. The student in Mr. Cantu case complained of libel form of defamation. This form of defamation is one that is conveyed either in written form or published as compared to slander defamation which is orally conveyed.
As explained by SNA Attorney, the key point in defamation is that a comment whether written or oral to any reasonable person appears defamatory and not to the complaint alone. Most important is when the comment lowers the status of a person to a reasonable person (SNA Attorneys, 2013). If well argued, the fact that the student does not like the image in Mr. Cantu video is not enough reason to have a case against the videographer. Any reasonable person may side with the videographer by noting that the whole video was not all about the student and any capture of him made was not really intentioned and did not intend to injure his reputation.
To win the case against Mr. Cantu mass medium, it is important that the defamatory content is well-pinpointed. Is the student’s dissatisfaction with the image in the video really enough reason to describe it as defamatory? Had the videographer formatted the image in such a way to defame the student with intention? Legally, Mr. Cantu has no responsibility of removing the content which the student felt that it would negatively affect the way the society thinks of him. Although it was not really by intention to show the image in the video, it is crucial that Mr. Cantu removes the content just for ethical reason by not really as a legal matter since he had no intentions of harming the reputation of the student.
It would have been a legal obligation to remove the content if there were falsehood or intentions of harming the complaint (Zelezny, 2010). The request by the student to the videographer to remove the image was quite reasonable, since it was his opinion that it would lower the society estimation of him. However, the fact that the case lacks any element of libel defamation (defamatory content, falsity, publication, identification, fault, harm) (Zelezny, 2010) makes the student not to have a lawsuit against Mr. Cantu.