FBI Arrests Man For Allegedly Sending Journalist Seizure-Causing GIF(gizmodo.com)
gizmodo.com
FBI Arrests Man For Allegedly Sending Journalist Seizure-Causing GIF
http://gizmodo.com/fbi-arrests-man-for-allegedly-sending-journalist-seizur-1793375081
99 comments
Not really. Message board nerds may not care much about intent, but intent is most of what the law cares about. If it's really the GIF this person is being charged for, then the prosecution will simply present evidence to prove to a jury that the accused deliberately attempted to trigger a Eichenwald's seizure.
The mechanics of how they tried to do that will be of secondary importance, except to the extent that the law will likely care that whatever mechanism was used did in fact stand a good chance of causing a seizure.
The mechanics of how they tried to do that will be of secondary importance, except to the extent that the law will likely care that whatever mechanism was used did in fact stand a good chance of causing a seizure.
> Message board nerds may not care much about intent, but intent is most of what the law cares about.
More accurately, mental state (of which intent is but one aspect) is a substantial part of the definition of most crimes.
More accurately, mental state (of which intent is but one aspect) is a substantial part of the definition of most crimes.
You've mischaracterized it as a strawman of "message board nerds", but it's actually a respectable philosophical distinction between purely executable semantics and ambient authority.
Executable semantics are more scalable, being a core innovation that allowed the Internet to flourish - eg a router doesn't care about the intent of a packet, but only its destination address. (ISPs are doing their best to undermine the e2e principle, attempting to infer intent to extract more value than can be gotten from commodity service, but I digress).
If we want to follow the implications of executable semantics, then an epileptic should have software which prevents harmful signals from being shown on their screen. This seems onerous, except for the ultimate alternative being a single world jurisdiction to enable post-facto prosecution of cross-border "intent", and destruction of Internet anonymity to effect this.
A signal filter also seems to be a more practical device than say a content filter to block scams for a cognitively-impaired older person, which is the accepted state of affairs even for intranational snail mail (eg Publishers' Clearinghouse).
(note: I've said nothing condoning the actual act of attempting to give a person a seizure, but only how we should analyze the systems that have given rise to this capability. The simplistic reaction of focusing blame on the (essentially stochastic) perpetrator is helping to push us down the path of unsustainable centralization)
Executable semantics are more scalable, being a core innovation that allowed the Internet to flourish - eg a router doesn't care about the intent of a packet, but only its destination address. (ISPs are doing their best to undermine the e2e principle, attempting to infer intent to extract more value than can be gotten from commodity service, but I digress).
If we want to follow the implications of executable semantics, then an epileptic should have software which prevents harmful signals from being shown on their screen. This seems onerous, except for the ultimate alternative being a single world jurisdiction to enable post-facto prosecution of cross-border "intent", and destruction of Internet anonymity to effect this.
A signal filter also seems to be a more practical device than say a content filter to block scams for a cognitively-impaired older person, which is the accepted state of affairs even for intranational snail mail (eg Publishers' Clearinghouse).
(note: I've said nothing condoning the actual act of attempting to give a person a seizure, but only how we should analyze the systems that have given rise to this capability. The simplistic reaction of focusing blame on the (essentially stochastic) perpetrator is helping to push us down the path of unsustainable centralization)
If it will spare us a long and unproductive debate can we just stipulate that I'm speaking positively and not normatively? Whatever your philosophical leanings might be, intent is basically the fulcrum for most of US criminal law as it exists in the real world.
As a result, we don't have to reach far to see how inducing a seizure over the Internet could result in criminal liability. It isn't a stretch. The laws we had 40 years ago adequately capture the event.
As a result, we don't have to reach far to see how inducing a seizure over the Internet could result in criminal liability. It isn't a stretch. The laws we had 40 years ago adequately capture the event.
In a sense that's following my point - describing the executable semantics of the legal system, sure. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a purely positive statement, as simply explaining how something works also promulgates it. This is a basic tenet of how the legal system bootstraps its own justification - notice, publication, etc.
We can argue about it or not, but normatively I know that I would indeed like some sort of purely-executable-semantics environment, as the Internet was originally perceived as. Twitster's walled garden likely isn't a workable place to push for this for (being a mass-marketed proprietary service that merely delivers over the Internet). But as I don't see a boundary for where the legal system will ever stop attempting to apply its ambient authority, it is worthwhile to point out that there are alternative philosophies at every one of these occurrences.
We can argue about it or not, but normatively I know that I would indeed like some sort of purely-executable-semantics environment, as the Internet was originally perceived as. Twitster's walled garden likely isn't a workable place to push for this for (being a mass-marketed proprietary service that merely delivers over the Internet). But as I don't see a boundary for where the legal system will ever stop attempting to apply its ambient authority, it is worthwhile to point out that there are alternative philosophies at every one of these occurrences.
You seem to have wandered off topic at some point. The FBI didn't arrest the ISP. They arrested the sender. What's more end to end than that?
The FBI is interjecting itself by applying an interpretation to communication that occurred between two other endpoints. Furthermore, the legal system's judgment is being incorporated as third-party requirement that all future communication must adhere to.
Just something blinking doesn't cause a seizure, the blinking has to be a certain frequency to induce it.
Also important in this case is that the seizure gif in question was personalized with the message “You deserve a seizure for your postings.” That make the case similar to force feeding peanuts to a guy you know have a severe peanut allergy.
Also important in this case is that the seizure gif in question was personalized with the message “You deserve a seizure for your postings.” That make the case similar to force feeding peanuts to a guy you know have a severe peanut allergy.
Anyone have a link to good GIFs? I couldn't find any. I'm very curious to see what these look like.
[edit] Found this based on suggestion below. Obviously, don't click if you're seizure-prone: http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb217/powercrazy13/you-de...
I guess I'm not epileptic. It's pretty uncomfortable to look at for a long stretch though. Anyone know what happens if a non-epileptic stares at an image like this, say, for an hour?
[edit] Found this based on suggestion below. Obviously, don't click if you're seizure-prone: http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb217/powercrazy13/you-de...
I guess I'm not epileptic. It's pretty uncomfortable to look at for a long stretch though. Anyone know what happens if a non-epileptic stares at an image like this, say, for an hour?
> I guess I'm not epileptic.
Only a small part of the epileptic people is sensible to the flashing light. Some are affected by strong strip patterns instead. Most are totally not affected by this, and their seizures can be triggered by other means.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosensitive_epilepsy
> Photosensitive epilepsy (PSE) is a form of epilepsy in which seizures are triggered by visual stimuli that form patterns in time or space, such as flashing lights, bold, regular patterns, or regular moving patterns.
From http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/triggers-seizures/photosensiti...
> For about 3 percent of people with epilepsy, exposure to flashing lights at certain intensities or to certain visual patterns can trigger seizures. This condition is known as photosensitive epilepsy.
Only a small part of the epileptic people is sensible to the flashing light. Some are affected by strong strip patterns instead. Most are totally not affected by this, and their seizures can be triggered by other means.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosensitive_epilepsy
> Photosensitive epilepsy (PSE) is a form of epilepsy in which seizures are triggered by visual stimuli that form patterns in time or space, such as flashing lights, bold, regular patterns, or regular moving patterns.
From http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/triggers-seizures/photosensiti...
> For about 3 percent of people with epilepsy, exposure to flashing lights at certain intensities or to certain visual patterns can trigger seizures. This condition is known as photosensitive epilepsy.
In as much as the FBI just arrested a dude for this... I wont post a link. But do a search for "you deserve a seizure" and you'll see.
Weird how mind works. I clicked the link ONLY to see if the gifs are there. Didn't read a single line in the article, closed and came to comments to see if it's here.
its more efficient, many times
Obligatory _Snow Crash_ reference along with the increasingly redundant observation that we really are living in a cyberpunk dystopia.
You know, if the man had fallen and died, this would be an open-and-shut case of 2nd degree murder via "depraved indifference".
How technically difficult would it be to make a browser extension that detects and pauses videos and gifs that might cause a seizure? Are the conditions that cause seizures pretty well known so that something specific can be detected?
Videos - disable autoplay.
GIFs - adblock them? as far as detection goes - you could detect vast color shifts at high frequencies.
GIFs - adblock them? as far as detection goes - you could detect vast color shifts at high frequencies.
Twitter doesn't play them if you don't want to.
He stated that happened to him before.
And still didn't disable autoplay.
No case.
If random gifs can trigger your seizures then maybe you need to browse the internet with gifs disabled.
That may well be the case, but if you purposefully present a flashing GIF to someone you know to have epilepsy for the purpose of attempting to induce a seizure, the laws of pretty much every state will say you've committed at least simple assault, and probably felony assault.
Right. If I can break into your house, I should get your stuff. You should have had better locks and thicker doors. /s
My knee jerk reaction was to respond "Well hold on now, that doesn't sound right..." but I'm now guessing you're trying to point out some absurdity in OPs comment?
That's absolutely correct, and I added a "/s" to clarify that. I should never forget Poe's Law after all.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
That doesn't follow.
If one's allergic they should avoid allergens. If one's known to be prone to seizures, they'd better avoid the cause. This doesn't mean its their fault, neither it implies that others are completely free to exploit this weakness. Yet, it still makes sense to take precautions.
If one's allergic they should avoid allergens. If one's known to be prone to seizures, they'd better avoid the cause. This doesn't mean its their fault, neither it implies that others are completely free to exploit this weakness. Yet, it still makes sense to take precautions.
So if you take all of those precautions, and then I send you a letter coated with (for example) peanut extract... you what... shouldn't get mail? Should you have seen my assault coming?
Nope. Unless I'm misunderstanding English (sorry, I'm not a native speaker), neither of those two are implications of "maybe you need to avoid it" statement.
My understanding of the GP statement is taking it at its literal value. I.e. that if it's known that some animations one may encounter at random may be severely harmful to their health, it is possibly smart (a "maybe"-grade suggestion) to take some precaution by disabling animations. Which may be or may be not a good idea - depending on what value non-seizure-triggering animations have.
No other things are implied by this (or at least I fail to see it), and I'm sure it doesn't imply that receiver should've somehow foreseen that they would be attacked that way.
My understanding of the GP statement is taking it at its literal value. I.e. that if it's known that some animations one may encounter at random may be severely harmful to their health, it is possibly smart (a "maybe"-grade suggestion) to take some precaution by disabling animations. Which may be or may be not a good idea - depending on what value non-seizure-triggering animations have.
No other things are implied by this (or at least I fail to see it), and I'm sure it doesn't imply that receiver should've somehow foreseen that they would be attacked that way.
This guy didn't stumble across a dangerous animation, it was sent to him in the knowledge that it might hurt him. Presumably in his daily life he doesn't do a lot of raw Google image searches. What you're saying is, "You have this illness, and you've never slipped up with it. Someone else might maliciously send you an animation though, so no animations for you."
That. Is. A. Problem.
That. Is. A. Problem.
No. I haven't said that, and I was trying to be really explicit about what exactly I meant. Sorry if I had failed to convey the exact meaning.
I'm saying "if you're aware (and now that person is) that you have this illness it may be smart to take disable animations".
I'm saying "if you're aware (and now that person is) that you have this illness it may be smart to take disable animations".
...Because someone might try to harm you with one, intentionally... as in this case?
How are those two even remotely similar?
Both depend on placing arbitrary limits on the victim of a crime, to excuse the perpetrator's behavior. It's not a crime to fail to take adequate precautions; it's a crime to try to rob someone, or harm them.
>Both depend on placing arbitrary limits on the victim of a crime, to excuse the perpetrator's behavior
They absolutely do not.
If a person is sensitive/allergy to something why shouldn't it be that person's responsibility to avoid coming into contact with it? Should all gifs that MAY cause seizures be outlawed on the internet now? Why should it be the rest of the internet's responsibility not to have gifs that may cause seizures?
What if I recommend an anime that may cause seizures, should I be arrested for recommending something?
They absolutely do not.
If a person is sensitive/allergy to something why shouldn't it be that person's responsibility to avoid coming into contact with it? Should all gifs that MAY cause seizures be outlawed on the internet now? Why should it be the rest of the internet's responsibility not to have gifs that may cause seizures?
What if I recommend an anime that may cause seizures, should I be arrested for recommending something?
So if you get hit by a bullet it's your fault that you're not wearing bulletproof clothes? Or is it the fault of the person who deliberately tried to cause harm to you?
The main force at work in this and similar cases is intent. A rational person could assume that someone prone to seizures triggered by flashing lights probably does go out of their way to avoid them. But when you're deliberately sent something with the intent to do harm, that changes things.
Did you recommend it to someone you knew to have seizures, with the intent to cause a seizure?
I'm not really buying this whole trend in this thread of arguing what amounts to, "I should be able to fire my gun into a crowd, it's my right, they should be wearing Kevlar."
I'm not really buying this whole trend in this thread of arguing what amounts to, "I should be able to fire my gun into a crowd, it's my right, they should be wearing Kevlar."
Maybe I'm missing it but what, precisely, is this guy charged with?
There's a PDF of an incident report linked: assault.
Assault ....via the Internet‽ That's a new one. I can't wait to see this played out in court.
On the one hand, those are awful horrible people who sent him the gifs, on the other hand I feel like sending someone a gif is protected free speech? I'm very torn.
Also I don't know what app he is using but they don't autoplay for me… So it seems… avoidable.
Also I don't know what app he is using but they don't autoplay for me… So it seems… avoidable.
Just like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (where there is no fire), sending someone a gif in the hopes that it causes a seizure is not protected speech. It's assult.
I agree that the first amendment doesn't apply in this case, but the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy is only used by people who aren't aware of its origin. The phrase was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in WWI, in a SCOTUS decision to imprison socialists for leafleting against the draft.[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
[deleted]
The origin may be questionable, but is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater protected speech?
Slippery slope. If I tell someone on the internet to kill themselves and it turns out they're actually suicidally depressed, should I be charged with a crime?
What if I post something that's just really offensive? I feel like we've entered a time where people would gladly see the First Amendment trodden over if it means seeing "justice" doled out to nasty people.
What if I post something that's just really offensive? I feel like we've entered a time where people would gladly see the First Amendment trodden over if it means seeing "justice" doled out to nasty people.
Eichenwald didn't "turn out" to have epilepsy – he had written about it before. This was someone intentionally attempting to harm someone by triggering a seizure.
And your hypothetical situation isn't hypothetical – people who cyberbully others into committing suicide are certainly charged for their crimes.
And your hypothetical situation isn't hypothetical – people who cyberbully others into committing suicide are certainly charged for their crimes.
Yes, in fact, there is precedent for this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/massachusetts-teen-accused-urging-b...
This isn't even close to a gray area! The analogy would be finding out that your target is in a given theater, where you then yell "fire!". This was targeted and pre-meditated; the result and the intent were one and the same.
Your argument rests on something very different.
Your argument rests on something very different.
It's not illegal for me to serve people food with peanuts. It is illegal for me to serve peanuts to someone that is allergic with the intent to cause them harm. There is no "slippery slope" that serving peanuts to anyone will become illegal.
Well... no. If you could say a magic word that induced a seizure, you would be prohibited from saying that too.
I think there are a number of words that "trigger" certain people, and it's well within my legal rights to say them.
I think you probably understood what I actually meant, and wrote, so I won't be entertaining ^That.
I understood completely well, I simply legitimately don't think they're that different of things. I think you're underplaying triggering.
They are both mental triggers. You literally "trigger" a seizure. I know a person who any mention of rape brings her to attempt self harm. It's genuinely not that different.
They are both mental triggers. You literally "trigger" a seizure. I know a person who any mention of rape brings her to attempt self harm. It's genuinely not that different.
Except for the part where it's completely different, and you decided to play the, "doesn't understand what you mean" game first.
I like to think that if you had a good point, you'd be making it, and that it wouldn't involve a really desperate attempt to equivocate between "trigger words" and photosensitive epilepsy.
I like to think that if you had a good point, you'd be making it, and that it wouldn't involve a really desperate attempt to equivocate between "trigger words" and photosensitive epilepsy.
"triggering" someone is not the same thing as triggering a seizure.
Imagine if the man viewed this while driving, crashed and died or killed others.
Then I'd have no sympathy for him and if he survived he should be put in jail for manslaughter, possibly even murder. The guy knows these devices do this to him yet continues to use them. If he's using these devices behind the wheel (or IMO at all) he's being irresponsible. He needs to take responsibility for his actions and stop blaming others. In other words, he's responsible for his own actions (using devices that can cause seizures) and their consequences (getting a seizure) like everyone else at all times.
[Deleted]
The victim not taking the appropriate steps to avoid something harmful to them is never, ever a defense in assault cases. It's not as if we punish muggers less severely if they mugged someone in a bad neighborhood where the victim shouldn't have been walking.
Even if the person here hadn't known that Eichenwald had epilepsy, they could still be charged, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull. So the fact that they did know and intentionally caused an attack is certainly punishable.
Even if the person here hadn't known that Eichenwald had epilepsy, they could still be charged, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull. So the fact that they did know and intentionally caused an attack is certainly punishable.
It doesn't matter what steps you take. If you leave all your doors unlocked and your windows open and tell the world you have $1 million in cash inside, it's still a crime to rob you.
What if I send you baked goods with peanuts in them without telling you, knowing it might kill you?
> Like, if I'm severely allergic to peanuts, then I take reasonable steps to avoid them, such as not patronizing a restaurant that uses peanuts in its food.
What if someone made you a sandwich and didn't tell you there were peanuts in it with the intent of causing a reaction? Eating the sandwich could have been avoided, but you wouldn't know that until you took a bite.
What if someone made you a sandwich and didn't tell you there were peanuts in it with the intent of causing a reaction? Eating the sandwich could have been avoided, but you wouldn't know that until you took a bite.
This should clearly be a criminal offense. I do not think someone should be held responsible if they post seizure inducing GIFs with no ill intent, but this guy @ replied the journalist so it showed up on his Twitter feed, with a message accompanying the gif saying that he deserved a seizure.
The key here is intent to cause harm.
Slippery slope? What if I post a seizure gif to twitter, not addressed to anyone in particular? Can I be charged if some random person sees it?
You can swing your arms around as much as you like, but if you swing them into someone's face, that's illegal. As someone posted above, you can make food with peanuts as much as you'd like, but if you sneak peanuts into someone's meal who you know is allergic to peanuts, that's illegal.
Tweeting gifs? Fine. Tweeting gifs at someone with the intent to cause harm? Illegal
Tweeting gifs? Fine. Tweeting gifs at someone with the intent to cause harm? Illegal
Not at all. Unless you tag it with a person you know vulnerable to seizures, and then on top of that, brag about it.
Eichenwald has made many enemies and intentionally became part of his own reporting. He is his own victim. That a reporter like that would challenge the first amendment with a naive emotionally charged approach should give anyone pause.
http://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39957/
http://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39957/
> "challenge the first amendment"
sorry, what? i don't think assault is protected by the first amendment. at the risk of sounding naive i have to ask why Manson wasn't protected under the first amendment?
sorry, what? i don't think assault is protected by the first amendment. at the risk of sounding naive i have to ask why Manson wasn't protected under the first amendment?
Perhaps Muslims are owed justice for the imagery assaulting their prophet?
Is assault possible with only words and images? If it entices someone to commit acts of violence, yes. If it is the words themselves that cause injury, the reader has the option to not engage in risky behavior.
Is assault possible with only words and images? If it entices someone to commit acts of violence, yes. If it is the words themselves that cause injury, the reader has the option to not engage in risky behavior.
my point is simply that many types of expression and speech are not protected by the first amendment. period. there is nothing contradictory or ironic of a journalist challenging the first amendment in court.
break it down this way: some guy literally tried to give another guy a seizure. are the means by which he tried to induce the seizure even relevant? would anyone really suggest taking action with this intent should not be punishable?
a lot of people want to say "oh but free speech...?"-- as if to imply you're free to kill someone as long as you only use words to do it.
break it down this way: some guy literally tried to give another guy a seizure. are the means by which he tried to induce the seizure even relevant? would anyone really suggest taking action with this intent should not be punishable?
a lot of people want to say "oh but free speech...?"-- as if to imply you're free to kill someone as long as you only use words to do it.
It's not reasonable to introduce additional first amendment restrictions or award damages in response to targeted prank tweets by internet trolls.
How do we know Eichenwald actually had a seizure? Why wouldn't he take precautions if he knew using a computer could cause a seizure? He appears to have motive to lie, an opportunity to get away with it, and a proven desire to be the "hero" in his own reporting. He is his own victim.
How do we know Eichenwald actually had a seizure? Why wouldn't he take precautions if he knew using a computer could cause a seizure? He appears to have motive to lie, an opportunity to get away with it, and a proven desire to be the "hero" in his own reporting. He is his own victim.
to get this out of the way: if he lied, that is a completely different subject. nor is it for us to judge. nor am i interested in speculating.
> It's not reasonable to introduce additional first amendment restrictions or award damages in response to targeted prank tweets by internet trolls.
the medium is irrelevant. the first amendment does not cover all forms of expression and speech. period, man.
> Why wouldn't he take precautions if he knew using a computer could cause a seizure?
it's like saying, why cross the street if you know you can get hit by a car? obviously there is a statistical difference, but that would suggest a slippery slope. other posters in this thread have given less extreme examples of this spectrum.
you have to look at it from the perspective of intent.
honest question: if yesterday i'd asked you "some guy maliciously and willfully gave another guy a seizure, should he be punished?". would you respond, "depends, how'd he do it?"
> It's not reasonable to introduce additional first amendment restrictions or award damages in response to targeted prank tweets by internet trolls.
the medium is irrelevant. the first amendment does not cover all forms of expression and speech. period, man.
> Why wouldn't he take precautions if he knew using a computer could cause a seizure?
it's like saying, why cross the street if you know you can get hit by a car? obviously there is a statistical difference, but that would suggest a slippery slope. other posters in this thread have given less extreme examples of this spectrum.
you have to look at it from the perspective of intent.
honest question: if yesterday i'd asked you "some guy maliciously and willfully gave another guy a seizure, should he be punished?". would you respond, "depends, how'd he do it?"
"Who in their right mind goes around serving up seizures..."
I agree violence should be met with appropriate justice.
Circumstances and context are rarely as cut and dried as your honest question. For example, there are some people alive that I'd rather they not be. Without context only a psychopath would think that. But if I add "9/11 victim" as context? Then you not only get it, you're on board.
It's the same here. On the surface it's shocking and offensive, but when you learn of prior behavior it becomes reasonable to doubt a reporter that hid his direct participation in news stories he was reporting. It seems more likely to me the victim seeks fame and fortune rather than justice.
The medium is relevant due to state lines. This is a Federal offense, where the guilty party goes to big boy prison and never gets a good job interview again. For what is widely viewed as an Internet prank. Pretty sure there's a Simpson episode with a similar prank too.
Disabled people have many precautions they take just to get thru each day. Many are required by law to report their medical status on a regular basis. It's not a stretch to ask if any precautions were taken in this case because if none were and a doctor had advised the victim differently there is less merit here.
I agree violence should be met with appropriate justice.
Circumstances and context are rarely as cut and dried as your honest question. For example, there are some people alive that I'd rather they not be. Without context only a psychopath would think that. But if I add "9/11 victim" as context? Then you not only get it, you're on board.
It's the same here. On the surface it's shocking and offensive, but when you learn of prior behavior it becomes reasonable to doubt a reporter that hid his direct participation in news stories he was reporting. It seems more likely to me the victim seeks fame and fortune rather than justice.
The medium is relevant due to state lines. This is a Federal offense, where the guilty party goes to big boy prison and never gets a good job interview again. For what is widely viewed as an Internet prank. Pretty sure there's a Simpson episode with a similar prank too.
Disabled people have many precautions they take just to get thru each day. Many are required by law to report their medical status on a regular basis. It's not a stretch to ask if any precautions were taken in this case because if none were and a doctor had advised the victim differently there is less merit here.
hm. i think we're seeing eye to eye. you seem more willing to speculate but that is not an offense. the only points i wanted to make are:
1. first amendment does not mean you can say or do whatever you wish 2. if the we can assume the facts are correct, the guy should be punished accordingly
which, if i understand correctly, are two points you'd not even disagree with, barring any new evidence.
1. first amendment does not mean you can say or do whatever you wish 2. if the we can assume the facts are correct, the guy should be punished accordingly
which, if i understand correctly, are two points you'd not even disagree with, barring any new evidence.
What's next?
Sending pictures of hamburgers, porn, candy and alcohol will be illegal because it can cause people to become obese, suffer stroke, and disease, and an erection.
In other news, the proprietors of hundreds of optical illusion sites have had their homes raided and being kept in prison cells for inciting physical distress on the public.
Soon there will be takedown requests to remove search results for sites that discuss optical illusions or link to sites that link to sites that -may- cause some physical distress
Sending pictures of hamburgers, porn, candy and alcohol will be illegal because it can cause people to become obese, suffer stroke, and disease, and an erection.
In other news, the proprietors of hundreds of optical illusion sites have had their homes raided and being kept in prison cells for inciting physical distress on the public.
Soon there will be takedown requests to remove search results for sites that discuss optical illusions or link to sites that link to sites that -may- cause some physical distress
Nah, what's next is that you will see a friend of yours die because of their allergies to a product that wasn't indicated on the package. Will you spit on the grave, or will you realize that you aren't alone in this world and your apparent absence of triggers doesn't prevent you from being a shithead?
Cheers, and happy St. Patrick.
Cheers, and happy St. Patrick.
Nice ad-hominem.
This is a philosophical debate and we are on a very interesting line that is worthy of passionate discussion.
It is not as clear cut as many people say.
We aggressively advertise harmful substances to people, KNOWING full well that MILLIONS of people will be imprinted at a young age and result in disastrous consequences for their health (Seizures! And more).
Giving kids sugar at a young age and making them addicted to sugary cereals with "prizes" in the box should result in a much greater pumishment than what these chumps did.
I know they are on a different scale. But your reaction is a pre-reflective one and likely due to the novelty of this "assault".
We will see if these writings are vindicated or not based on a guilty/not-guilty. Then we can read the Judge's PDF and see what philosophical consideratioms were at play.
This is a philosophical debate and we are on a very interesting line that is worthy of passionate discussion.
It is not as clear cut as many people say.
We aggressively advertise harmful substances to people, KNOWING full well that MILLIONS of people will be imprinted at a young age and result in disastrous consequences for their health (Seizures! And more).
Giving kids sugar at a young age and making them addicted to sugary cereals with "prizes" in the box should result in a much greater pumishment than what these chumps did.
I know they are on a different scale. But your reaction is a pre-reflective one and likely due to the novelty of this "assault".
We will see if these writings are vindicated or not based on a guilty/not-guilty. Then we can read the Judge's PDF and see what philosophical consideratioms were at play.
> We aggressively advertise harmful substances to people, KNOWING full well that MILLIONS of people will be imprinted at a young age and result in disastrous consequences for their health (Seizures! And more).
You are stating here that "we" are aggressively advertising harmful substances to people that will cause them to have seizures?
You are stating here that "we" are aggressively advertising harmful substances to people that will cause them to have seizures?
Let's remove the internet from the equation. So you have a grudge with someone, you know they have epilepsy, so you assault them to trigger one. Is this a crime? Most likely, I know if I had epilepsy I would hope so (and judging from this article I think it is) So why is it ridiculous for assaulting someone on Twitter specifically to trigger a seizure some how ridiculous that it's a crime?
Because then we can't treat the Internet like the wild west and do a bunch of stuff that the law would have prevented us from doing before... /s
This was done on purpose - the individual specifically said he was doing it to cause a seizure. It's not comparable to hypotheticals you described.
Oh, so Big Food, Pharma, Alcohol are not intentionally making you crave the shitty addictive foods that we know cause those symptoms?
That has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with the article, or any discussion regarding it. Why do you keep bringing up that non sequitur?
In other news, false equivalences lead to bad conclusions. The same action can be beneficent in some contexts, malicious in others, and even neutral in still others — think a surgeon cutting someone vs. an assassin cutting someone vs. somebody handing you a document that gives you a papercut. Treating all these cases as though they're equivalent would be ridiculous and not at all useful.
> More than 40 ppl sent strobes once they found out they could trigger seizures.
I'd like to see you explain how that isn't an intentional attempt to physically harm the journalist in question.
There are dozens of things that fall under the same legal category, such as pranks (often harmless unless they go wrong) that end up physically harming someone, that will properly get you in serious trouble.
I'd like to see you explain how that isn't an intentional attempt to physically harm the journalist in question.
There are dozens of things that fall under the same legal category, such as pranks (often harmless unless they go wrong) that end up physically harming someone, that will properly get you in serious trouble.
That's actually one of the sad things about the internet, it can instantly bring out the worst in people. I suspect if people know seizures can result in death fewer would have done it, but there would still have been people doing it. I wouldn't mind if they arrested all 40, gave them a day in jail so they could think about their actions, and also let the world know there are consequences for it.
Probably one of my favorite black mirror episodes involves exploring the consequences of anonymity on the internet and the (deadly) consequences. Worth seeing that one I think, because after I watched, I wasn't sure if I'd be one to join in the fray in the crowd, and the only thing stopping me is the idea that I might be caught and punished, and so what does that say about me?
Yes, because guilty until proven innocent is the best way to teach them a lesson!
It's a shame you are not a lawyer or a judge.
It's a shame you are not a lawyer or a judge.
Arrests occur previous to judges being involved and determinations of guilt.
Your sarcastic and aggressive tone in this thread isn't helping you get your point across.
Your sarcastic and aggressive tone in this thread isn't helping you get your point across.
> Arrests occur previous to judges being involved and determinations of guilt.
Well, quite often after judges are involved, but before determinations of guilt. Arrest warrants are, after all, a thing.
Well, quite often after judges are involved, but before determinations of guilt. Arrest warrants are, after all, a thing.
Thanks, I phrased that poorly.
No, it's like you being deathly allergic to shellfish, and me coating your glass with shrimp extract. It's a clear attempt to harm without any concern for potentially injurious or fatal outcomes.
That's poisoning someone.
Showing an image designed to induce a seizure in someone with a neurological disorder is not unlike poisoning.
It's so refreshing to finally be on the same page.
It's so refreshing to finally be on the same page.
Going back to reality: Someone severely allergic to peanuts is killed with peanuts in their food by a mistake: accident. Someone severely allergic to peanuts is killed with peanuts in their food because someone added them on purpose with knowledge of the condition? Murder.
Luckily, seizures don't always result in death.
Now to confound the issue here? The internet is already filled with blinking gifs, so this case is much more complicated.