Man vs. Image – The Curious Case of Kurt Eichenwald

a reply to: AboveBoard

Eh. Video game makers, among others, give warnings about their products that might cause seizures. If a photosensitive epileptic chooses to just jump right into the content of those video games without reading the warnings, they are responsible (err...irresponsible?).

Same with viewing anything on the internet, IMO. Any photosensitive epileptic should find out whatever they can about the content they want to view before viewing it.

If Twitter doesn't allow someone with photosensitive epilepsy to preview the text of a tweet before viewing potentially seizure inducing graphics, then I think it's entirely on the epileptic. They shouldn't join Twitter if that's not a feature because it is critical to protecting their health.

Do you just go around eating whatever you want having food allergies without asking or investigating the ingredients first?

If you do, then that is totally on you if you eat something that triggers an allergy.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AboveBoard

The peanut causes the reaction. It is an immune response from coming into physical contact with a peanut. In the case of electronic assassination attempts, the causal sequence is entirely different.

The GIF CAUSES THE REACTION. It is exactly the same!! The Light comes in contact with the retina at a certain flash rate and the response from the brain then occurs. Stimulus and response.

The problem is that a gif is essentially code. The light came from his screen.

Oh for The love of Justice and Truth LM, do you not see motive to harm vs accidental exposure? Do you not see that the person sending the potentially deadly message with the intent to kill/harm is doing something beyond "just sending code"?!?'

Fine. Obviously I'm speaking in tongues or something here and the man who sent the GIF is completely not responsible for his knowing attempted murder.


Meh. I'm
Done explaining the obvious.

a reply to: AboveBoard

It's frustrating, I know. But it's a unique case, and that requires extra caution.

I find the man's actions morally repugnant. I do not condone trolling of that nature, and do not wish to delegitimize the effects of epilepsy.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AboveBoard

It's frustrating, I know. But it's a unique case, and that requires extra caution.

I find the man's actions morally repugnant. I do not condone trolling of that nature, and do not wish to delegitimize the effects of epilepsy.

I know we all bear some responsibility for self protection. If a woman is assaulted and nearly killed walking down a dark alley, we can fault her judgement and say it was stupid of her to do that with no reasonable means of protecting herself.

Does that absolve the individual who perpetrated the assault? Do they no longer bear responsibility for THEIR actions irregardless of whether the woman "should" have been in the alley?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The problem is that a gif is essentially code. The light came from his screen.

If a virus writer creates a virus that can cause a plane's avionics to fail and he infects several planes with it, causing them all to crash, resulting in the deaths of all onboard, is he not a murderer?

I more often than not find myself agreeing on other issues with most of those taking the position that the sending of the GIF shouldn't be a crime in this thread, but in this case I can't.

The clear intent to cause physical harm to Eichenwald, the plausibility/likelihood that sending the GIF could/would cause harm, and then the actual sending of the GIF to Eichenwald, all taken together, constitutes a crime in my mind.

I think mailing peanut dust to someone one knows to be allergic to peanuts is an apt analogy. The only legitimate issues I can see someone taking with the peanut dust analogy is that the peanut dust is more likely to cause greater harm, quite possibly death, and mitigating against that possible short coming in the analogy in this specific case, the man sending the GIF made some statements that suggest he foresaw death as a possible consequence.

So, I probably wouldn't argue attempted murder, I'd discount the sender's statements as bluster and I'd take in the relatively lesser plausibility/likelihood of serious harm as compared to something like peanut dust sent to someone allergic to it. But I say it's assault for sure.

Then I'd tell Eichenwald to have someone else open his twitter, get a filter or whatever to avoid harm to himself in the future, just like I'd tell my daughter not to get drunk at a Frat party, not because Eichenwald shouldn't be able to open his own twitter, or whatever the hell it was, or that my daughter shouldn't be able to get smashed at a Frat party, but because the world just isn't always the way it should be and there's no point in suffering any more than is strictly necessary because it isn't.

Oh, I'm a Christian, Conservative, and supported Trump, for what it's worth.

AND P.S.

I'm going to say this because I may never have the opportunity to do so again:

Antedeluvian and Rome by Fire, In this case, I agree with both of you. And that without equivocation.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If I knowingly with intent to harm send a wireless signal to a car that causes it to malfunction, thus endangering the life of the driver, am I not guilty of attempted manslaughter?

If I knowingly and with intent to harm wirelessly send a code that will reach someone's brain via their sense of sight, and it causes their brain to malfunction thus endangering their life, ami I also not guilty of attempted manslaughter?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The lengths to which some of are you going to defend this asshole are amazing to me. If this was a member of the First Family rather than a Newsweek reporter critical of Trump and assaulted by a Trump troll, I'd be willing to bet that none of these bizarre arguments would be made.

What would you recommend photosensitive epileptics do if I started roaming the streets with wearable strobe lights because I decided one day that it was just hilarious to ambush unsuspecting epileptics and watch them seize?

Would you say that perhaps they should stay inside? Wear blindfolds and employ seeing eye dogs?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The problem is that a gif is essentially code. The light came from his screen.

If a virus writer creates a virus that can cause a plane's avionics to fail and he infects several planes with it, causing them all to crash, resulting in the deaths of all onboard, is he not a murderer?

Yes, but how is this analogous?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You made the point that the GIF is essentially code and the monitor generates the photons. I was just giving another example of how code could be weaponized to cause physical harm.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Words and images can be weaponized.

A Massachusetts woman broke down in tears Friday as she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for goading her teenage boyfriend into killing himself. Michelle Carter now faces up to 20 years in prison when she's sentenced on Aug. 3.

Li nk

If you can't see the connection between the criminal use of a epilepsy trigger on a known epileptic, which is akin to sneaking a peanut to someone with a potentially deadly peanut allergy, I don't know what to tell you. When the gif was sent it was intended to do harm and it did! It was weaponized like a bullet to his brain. It sent him to the hospital (expensive) and he could not drive for months, possibly still can't.

My son just had his first grand mal seizure a couple of months ago. They are horrible and there is great danger in being surprised by one as you can easily injure yourself.

The man who sent that image with the intent to cause a seizure knowingly committed a criminal act to harm another human being.

It's not censorship to say that's illegal, it's the same as holding someone criminally accountable for putting a peanut in something that might kill or at least hospitalize a severely allergic person

As to Kurt's personal responsibility, the fact that he could have been more careful (and now is) does not eliminate the criminal intent that turned a tweet into a weaponized message. That is a weak argument and the courts agree.

(Kurt no longer opens his own messages or checks his own twitter feed. He's taken that step because there are horrible people in the world that attempt to harm him for their own pleasure by sending him weaponized messages.)

It's not akin to giving peanuts to someone who is allergic to them. An image cannot be weaponized. Sending an image is not illegal, whether it is flashing or not.

It is in Australia.

www.smartsafe.org.au...

Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence (s 474.17) It is an offence for a person to use a carriage service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being menacing, harassing or offensive.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You made the point that the GIF is essentially code and the monitor generates the photons. I was just giving another example of how code could be weaponized to cause physical harm.

Yes code could cause malfunction, leading to tragedy. I just don't see how that is analogous to this particular case. The analogies used by the lawyers were sending anthrax or bombs through the mail.

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Words and images can be weaponized.

A Massachusetts woman broke down in tears Friday as she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for goading her teenage boyfriend into killing himself. Michelle Carter now faces up to 20 years in prison when she's sentenced on Aug. 3.

Li nk

If you can't see the connection between the criminal use of a epilepsy trigger on a known epileptic, which is akin to sneaking a peanut to someone with a potentially deadly peanut allergy, I don't know what to tell you. When the gif was sent it was intended to do harm and it did! It was weaponized like a bullet to his brain. It sent him to the hospital (expensive) and he could not drive for months, possibly still can't.

My son just had his first grand mal seizure a couple of months ago. They are horrible and there is great danger in being surprised by one as you can easily injure yourself.

The man who sent that image with the intent to cause a seizure knowingly committed a criminal act to harm another human being.

It's not censorship to say that's illegal, it's the same as holding someone criminally accountable for putting a peanut in something that might kill or at least hospitalize a severely allergic person

As to Kurt's personal responsibility, the fact that he could have been more careful (and now is) does not eliminate the criminal intent that turned a tweet into a weaponized message. That is a weak argument and the courts agree.

(Kurt no longer opens his own messages or checks his own twitter feed. He's taken that step because there are horrible people in the world that attempt to harm him for their own pleasure by sending him weaponized messages.)

It's not akin to giving peanuts to someone who is allergic to them. An image cannot be weaponized. Sending an image is not illegal, whether it is flashing or not.

It is in Australia.

www.smartsafe.org.au...

Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence (s 474.17) It is an offence for a person to use a carriage service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being menacing, harassing or offensive.

Australia isn't necessarily the last bastion of freedom. I wonder who these "reasonable persons" are. Can you think of anyone reasonable enough to decide what you can or cannot see?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You can harm people with images.

You can cause emotional harm.

And a seizure is physical harm being caused because of an image.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

An interesting case, LM.

I hate when people send their kids to school with the flu, cough, runny nose, and/or fever knowing my kid is susceptible to catching their viral/bacterial infection.

Sure, I know the risks...but I send my kids to school anyway.

Can I call the FBI to investigate should my kid catch something another child exposed them to?

Same goes with people who go to work contagious.

***

Is anyone responsible for taking any known risks?

In a civil case, that responsibility would be weighed. In a criminal case, however, it's not treated, like that.

I wonder if John Rivello will waive his right to a jury trial and let one judge decide the verdict.

Are you saying that parents and workers want to get other people sick and that they hope the sick will die?
Because if not than what your saying is nothing like this case. The guy that sent the image new it would cause harm and WANTED it to do so.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If images are going to be considered harmful, then when are words going to be considered the same?

That image caused a man to have a seizure. Can words cause a seizure? And by the way it is already illegal to use words considered harmful. Try and send a death threat to a congressman and you will see what I mean. Your not defending free speech , fredom isn't under attack here at all, your defending a little creep who tried to kill a man by exploiting a physical illness. Pick your battles man.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

People can and will use this to promote censorship.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The lengths to which some of are you going to defend this asshole are amazing to me. If this was a member of the First Family rather than a Newsweek reporter critical of Trump and assaulted by a Trump troll, I'd be willing to bet that none of these bizarre arguments would be made.

What would you recommend photosensitive epileptics do if I started roaming the streets with wearable strobe lights because I decided one day that it was just hilarious to ambush unsuspecting epileptics and watch them seize?

Would you say that perhaps they should stay inside? Wear blindfolds and employ seeing eye dogs?

Nice attempt to make this something partisan and political. Since I am not a Trump supporter, I don't think your hypothetical applies to me or even makes sense.

And if you roamed the streets with wearable strobe lights because you decided one day that it was just hilarious to ambush unsuspecting epileptics and watch them seize, then I would expect you to not be surprised if an epileptic who had a seizure due to your malicious recklessness filed a CIVIL complaint. As far as I know, there are no criminal statutes against wearing strobes lights.

Did you read that?

A CIVIL complaint. Not a criminal one. A CIVIL COMPLAINT.

It would be an issue for CIVIL COURTS.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Can a person assault another person with a shrimp? How about a peanut? If the assailant knows of the person's allergy to either shellfish or peanuts and causes the victim to forcibly or unwittingly ingest a substance that is innocuous to the majority but can cause a life threatening reaction in the victim, wouldn't that be assault?

Can a person assault another person with a flash light? Under normal circumstances, it seems absurd. But what if that flashlight has a strobe function and the assailant uses the strobe function to deliberately induce a seizure in an epileptic victim?

That's not assault?

Does it matter what the instrument or its mode of delivery was? Not in my opinion.

Yet a man faces 10 years for the crime of sending a flashing image in a tweet. Or it may be that a man faces 10 years in prison because Eichenwald failed to manage his own condition. Either way, both are an injustice, both threaten free speech, both blur the line between word and deed to an extent not seen since when we believed in curses, spells and sorcery.

The line that is being blurred here is one between 99.9999999% of tweets and the handful sent to an epileptic, containing specialized images, designed to harm the recipient. There's no way that this would be deemed protected speech.

curses, spells and sorcery

Curses, spells and sorcery don't cause seizures — strobing images on the other hand can.

Agreed. I was thinking , what would these defenders say if the perp had simply walked up to the victim and said hey look at this , then showed them a strobing image on there phone. Would they still say it's not assault if the perp just stood and laughed and then told everyone that was what he was hoping would happen?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You can harm people with images.

You can cause emotional harm.

And a seizure is physical harm being caused because of an image.

No you cannot.

Again, this is assuming he even had the seizure in the first place. His wife, for some reason, had the time to tweet "This is his wife, you caused a seizure. I have your information and have called the police to report the assault". Why? I have a sneaking suspicion that all of this is a ploy to settle a twitter spat.