Assault Memes, worth FBI investigation?

[satimy]

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


EDIT:

The defendant has been charged with cyberstalking, and NOT assault

[Svisalith]

Doesn't sound like an accident at all so fair game

[Snorkles]

Are assault memes protected by the first amendment?

Is arresting someone for sending someone with epilepsy a flashing image presumably with the hope that it'd cause a seizure an infringement of freedom of speech?

I think it should be quite obvious that it's not.

[Acidbaron]

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

It had the intent to harm, so in that case it warrants an investigation. Life threats are also investigated when they become more serious aren't they? I see this on the same level when it's invading someones personal space and trying to physically harm them.

I'm off opinion that we let people get away with too many things for quite some time and condone or at least ignore it since it happens to take place over the internet, while that platform has become part of our day to day life. To go back to the life threat argument, if someone mailed you a death threat with some harmful product in them it strikes to be of similar nature, just because it's digital doesn't mean it's harmless.

But politics and law makers are always playing catch up, i pretty much accept that more things we do digitally will become punishable by the law over the next decade.

[Mormolyce]

Yeah, but if you actually read the article instead of getting into moral outrage masturbation mode:

In December, shortly after Eichenwald appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight, a tweeter named @jew_goldstein tweeted a strobing GIF with the message “YOU DESERVE A SEIZURE FOR YOUR POSTS!” Shortly after, Eichenwald tweeted this:

Kurt Eichenwald ✔ @kurteichenwald
@jew_goldstein This is his wife, you caused a seizure. I have your information and have called the police to report the assault.

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

[Machismo]

It's still assault, even if it happens to be a very creative form of assault. The guy purposefully sought to harm another human being, so there shouldn't really be any question as to whether this is assault.

[zephid]

He knew the reporter suffers from epilepsy. He intentionally sent a gif designed to cause seizures to said reporter, causing a seizure. Of course he should get arrested for assault.

[satimy]

He knew the reporter suffers from epilepsy. He intentionally sent a gif designed to cause seizures to said reporter, causing a seizure. Of course he should get arrested for assault.

The burden should be on mr eichenwald to protect himself from such images. He also has to prove that this particular tweet caused a seizure which is likely impossible as well as even if he can prove all that they have to determine if it's actually assault. Hopefully the kid lawyers up, otherwise this is going to have bad implications for free speech.


Imagine Trump being able to arrest anyone whose speech "harms him"

[Machismo]

The burden should be on mr eichenwald to protect himself from such images. He also has to prove that this particular tweet caused a seizure which is likely impossible as well as even if he can prove all that they have to determine if it's actually assault. Hopefully the kid lawyers up, otherwise this is going to have bad implications for free speech.


Imagine Trump being able to arrest anyone whose speech "harms him"

That's like saying it is the responsibility of a homeowner to protect himself from someone throwing a molotov cocktail through his window.

The guy could show actual harm, as a seizure was the result. The person who did it made his intentions quite clear. That's fundamentally no different than if someone decided to lace his food with a drug that caused a seizure.

As for the FBI getting involved, they tend to do that when such actions cross state lines.

[Deleted]

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.

[Acidbaron]

If you want to argue this is about freedom of speech, you need to make the case about what message he was trying to send when sending a know pokemon still that had a high chance of seizure. Considering they probably did not have that topic in common at any level.

[Sunseeker]

Well the FBI has to become involved when it crosses state lines. One state's police cannot police another state's citizens.

If you know a person has *problem* that is made worse or activated by *condition* and that problem is detrimental to their health then putting that condition around them is purposefully trying to harm their health. The fact that the internet is largely unregulated does not mean that your actions online go without punishment.

[Rabka Uhalla]

The twitter user (not Kurt, the one who sent the gif) is absolutely in the wrong here, he sent the image with the intent to induce seizures, so he should be punished accordingly.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The twitter user (not Kurt, the one who sent the gif) is absolutely in the wrong here, he sent the image with the intent to induce seizures, so he should be punished accordingly.

My thoughts as well. There was intent to hurt here, it's not free speech.

Free speech would be to publicly oppose the author, not send health hazards. Isn't that common sense?

[Azadina]

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.

Indeed. And as seizures can very possibly be lethal, it should be called attempted murder, not just assault.

[owbu]

While we are on the subject, should mail bombs, be protected by freedom of speech?

[Independent voter]

The FBI gets involved if the crime crossed state lines. If you steal a car in Florida and drive it across the border to South Carolina, the FBI might get involved.

[The Emperor]

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!!

[Mehrunes]

The peanut analogy is rather apt here. His comment prior to sending that message implies intent and given how his wife was around, it seems there's a witness to the idea that this is what caused the seizure.

Indeed. And as seizures can very possibly be lethal, it should be called attempted murder, not just assault.

Well, that depends on the epileptic person in question and it should be taken into consideration, but if his case of epilepsy is that strong, you're right.

[alexkeren]

The burden should be on mr eichenwald to protect himself from such images. He also has to prove that this particular tweet caused a seizure which is likely impossible as well as even if he can prove all that they have to determine if it's actually assault. Hopefully the kid lawyers up, otherwise this is going to have bad implications for free speech.


Imagine Trump being able to arrest anyone whose speech "harms him"

A) One can only do so much in regards to Twitter to prevent that from happening.

B) Unfortunately for you there is plenty of court precedent over various things causing seizures.

C) Why do you think Blizzard, and the Gaming Industry as a whole, take seizures so seriously?