> Well obviously they're not going to say "drive over the posted speed limit on public roads". "too fast too furious" with a "professional driver, closed course" disclaimer at the end should be enough.
Whether or not such a disclaimer was sufficient evidence that they lacked the intent to encourage the crime (or whether the ass-covering was instead evidence that they knew they were encouraging crime and needed to deflect liability) would be a fact question if they were criminally charged with the crime of encouraging the crime of reckless driving.
OTOH, since they are being charged with a tort (civil wrong) and not that or any other crime, both the fact that such encouragement is a crime and fact questions relevant to Snap’s criminal liability for it are mostly irrelevant.
