Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChickenNugger | Hacker News Reader

>The complaint says Foreman also “created dozens of videos and images of Plaintiffs’ personas and posted them on various social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, Snap Chat, TicTok and Instagram.”

HN title is wildly misleading.

View on HN

That is just additional information that didn’t make it to the headline. Other facts not included in the title is that the cops took his money and didn’t give it all back. Instead their review stated that they miscounted the money when it came in…

We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong.

System is totally broken.

They're not suing him over the footage. They're suing him for publishing it all over the place in an attempt to monetize it.

You don't have to be on the cops' side to see that the headline is ridiculously misleading.

So? He filmed it in his own home. What rights should he have over footage from his own private space when others invade that space without invitation? Should a store or homeowner have to get permission from criminals who rob them to show that footage publicly?

I'm talking about the headline being misleading, not whether he's in the right or not.

Good thing there’s a whole article there to read and other articles as well, so you can get all of the details from a source more plentiful than a headline.

Thanks for conceding I was correct.

I don't think so. The HN title accurately describes two events that occurred.

The most easily misinterpreted part of the headline to me is it says "US police" making it sound federal. It's a county sheriff's office in Ohio.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com