Assault Memes, worth FBI investigation?

[Igi]

It's an assault, however if i receive a package and there's a note on it saying "you deserve to die" I'm definitely NOT going to open it.

[Felnoire]

Guy attempts to harm another by using their condition against them, get's arrested. Seems all above board, next topic.

[Eggers]

I'm not sure if you really are this ignorant or just pretending to be, but you can't just do anything you want on the internet and then say there shouldn't be any consequences because "it is INTERNET!!!!"

Actually Emperor is right. Digital transmission of an image file is completely within U.S. law. Period. You'd have to go to some country like China that has laws about what content is okay and what isn't in order to build a legal case against someone just for transferring digital images via a social network. Sorry, but i just don't see this ending well for epilepsy man there. You don't get special and arbitrary legal protections just because of a disability.

- - - Updated - - -

Lets say i have a mental disorder like depression due to losing baby during childbirth. Well, depending on the severity of my condition, i could be driven to suicide if someon sent me the picture of a dead fetus or something. However, pictures of fetal remains are not illegal to transmit. So, however mucg in bad taste it would be to do such a thing, it simply is not possible to convict a person even if they send you such an image. This is because the law cannot act one way for some people and another way for those with disabilities. That's eqality, whether u like it or not.

[Zoibert the Bear]

Lol I have a friend with photophobia and I do this to him all the time

[Aggrophobic]

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/03/k...rest-made.html

Guy sends an animated gif to an epileptic reporter and has now been hunted down and arrested by the FBI. Are assault memes protected by the first amendment? What's next? Arresting psychosomatic people when someone dies in a housefire.

Please share your opinion

The guy is deliberately trying to physically hurt someone. Of course he should end up in jail.

[Celista]

If government decides to prosecute people on the Internet I guess it simply wouldn't have time to do something else.
And there's another thing, why not just teach people to be Internet-smart and not open links and animated pictures from people you don't know, etc?
Did that guy really had no way of avoiding a seizure, like maybe not looking at the monitor, especially when the "assaulter" supposedly wrote "You deserve to have a seizure" prior to that??
I mean, hell, computers and monitors should be modified for people that have this malady. But prosecuting a guy who does this for fun and quite frankly he isn't even 50% sure this might induce a seizure, for an assault??? Give me a break!!

Maybe not computer monitors, but perhaps an app/plug-in that detects rapidly flashing gifs and disables them...not sure if it exists or how difficult a program would be to write, but someone should write one!

[Celista]

It's hard to prove in the court of law, but this is an pretty open and shut case.

If the article references his epilepsy, I fail to see how it would be hard to prove. FBI probably seized his home computer as evidence.

[AeneasBK]

My opinion is you're fucking retarded :S Nothing else to this.

[Wildtree]

Are assault memes protected by the first amendment?
Please share your opinion

You know the guy was arrested and charged with cyber stalking, right?

Is THAT protected? Not so much

18 U.S.C. 875(c)

[Sky High]

holy molly really cringey false equivalence batman! also no, not free speech, fuck that guy.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

No.

Keep your shit opinions to yourself and the trolls will leave you alone.

[De Lupe]

If it can be proven that it was done with the intention of triggering a seizure, I see no reason why it shouldn't be considered an assault charge.

Also, the poll is very limited.

[Travis B]

Actually Emperor is right. Digital transmission of an image file is completely within U.S. law. Period. You'd have to go to some country like China that has laws about what content is okay and what isn't in order to build a legal case against someone just for transferring digital images via a social network. Sorry, but i just don't see this ending well for epilepsy man there. You don't get special and arbitrary legal protections just because of a disability.

Do you even know anything about the story? Or are you just one of those people who reads a headline and assumes you know everything there is to know?

This isn't a case of someone posting an image and some other random person with epilepsy just happened to see it. This is a case of someone who deliberately targeted another individual who he knew had epilepsy, and was intentionally trying to cause a seizure. This is according to direct messages he sent to other Twitter users. He even speculated that the guy might die from a seizure caused by the image.

Lets say i have a mental disorder like depression due to losing baby during childbirth. Well, depending on the severity of my condition, i could be driven to suicide if someon sent me the picture of a dead fetus or something. However, pictures of fetal remains are not illegal to transmit. So, however mucg in bad taste it would be to do such a thing, it simply is not possible to convict a person even if they send you such an image. This is because the law cannot act one way for some people and another way for those with disabilities. That's eqality, whether u like it or not.

Congratulations, that is one of the worst analogies I've ever seen on here. And that's saying a lot.

[Orange Joe]

Actually Emperor is right. Digital transmission of an image file is completely within U.S. law. Period. You'd have to go to some country like China that has laws about what content is okay and what isn't in order to build a legal case against someone just for transferring digital images via a social network. Sorry, but i just don't see this ending well for epilepsy man there. You don't get special and arbitrary legal protections just because of a disability.

- - - Updated - - -

Lets say i have a mental disorder like depression due to losing baby during childbirth. Well, depending on the severity of my condition, i could be driven to suicide if someon sent me the picture of a dead fetus or something. However, pictures of fetal remains are not illegal to transmit. So, however mucg in bad taste it would be to do such a thing, it simply is not possible to convict a person even if they send you such an image. This is because the law cannot act one way for some people and another way for those with disabilities. That's eqality, whether u like it or not.

There is this thing we have (at least in American law) Called "intent". It matters less what you did, and more what your intent was.

[Ysho]

If I knew you're allergic to peanuts but sent you something that had peanuts with the intent of hurting you it would be attempted murder. This even if you sent a peanut containing food to anyone else, it would be ok.

Same here. The guy knew of epilepsy of victim and sent them a flashing gif with the specific purpose of causing harm. It's not the way they did it, it's the intention itself.

So if I sent a peanut butter pie to your house (knowing that you had a peanut allergy), but addressed to your wife, am I an attempted murderer?

[TITAN308]

So if I sent a peanut butter pie to your house (knowing that you had a peanut allergy), but addressed to your wife, am I an attempted murderer?

Are you prepared to articulate your reasoning to a judge and jury?

I know some of you think you are edgy, but I don't think you have any idea how it would play out in a courtroom.

[Orange Joe]

Are you prepared to articulate your reasoning to a judge and jury?

I know some of you think you are edgy, but I don't think you have any idea how it would play out in a courtroom.

A judge would already know intent is what matters.

[Ysho]

Are you messaging people telling them you're going to kill someone with a peanut allergy by sending a pie to his wife?

Have you heard the term "Hypothetical" before? You should look it up.

[satimy]

You know the guy was arrested and charged with cyber stalking, right?

Is THAT protected? Not so much

18 U.S.C. 875(c)

Can you cyberstalk a public twitter profile?

[Zindai]

I don't get why some people argue as if a seizure is an emotion, it's not like he just saw an image that made him angry. I think it's fair to compare it to allergies, diabetes and what not. They are illnesses that you can use against people to cause direct physical harm. It's more of a grey area when you move into self-harm and mental illnesses, which this is not.

Most of the internet is already adjusted to not trigger seizures in most people who are at risk. If regular browsing hasn't bothered him, perhaps thanks to these anti-seizure guidelines, should he still avoid going online just in case someone deliberately tries to give him a seizure? I'd really rather go after the person doing the harm then, since - whether you like him or not - human rights exist.

Your freedom ends where my nose begins...