It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Some people find that seizures may occur in a pattern or are more likely to occur in certain situations or under certain conditions. In an earlier section, we stressed the importance of keeping track of any factors that may bring on a seizure (also called seizure triggers). This is important, because avoiding or managing seizure triggers is something you and only you can do to lessen the chance that a seizure may occur under those circumstances.
He sent the image to Kurt.
Via a reply to one of KE's tweets. The sender knew it could do great harm - it was his weapon of choice. He is guilty of cyberstalking.
Think of it as code sent to disrupt an electrical grid, namely Kurt's brain.
No one is suggesting that images be curated other than the T&C of a site. You are blowing this way out of proportion. Perhaps twitter will disallow this sort of seizure inducing flashing gif with an automatic account shut-down.
Explain how this would make your life a hellscape of censorship?
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
It comes down to intent. If you send someone something (a tweet, a letter, whatever) that you know will cause a physical reaction because of a condition that person has, then yes, you are responsible.
If I intentionally mail a person who is allergic to bees a box of bees and they get stung opening the mailbox and have to go to the hospital, who's fault is it?
It's an image. Images are not noxious, explosive, and they cannot sting you.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AboveBoard
He sent the image to Kurt.
Via a reply to one of KE's tweets. The sender knew it could do great harm - it was his weapon of choice. He is guilty of cyberstalking.
Think of it as code sent to disrupt an electrical grid, namely Kurt's brain.
No one is suggesting that images be curated other than the T&C of a site. You are blowing this way out of proportion. Perhaps twitter will disallow this sort of seizure inducing flashing gif with an automatic account shut-down.
Explain how this would make your life a hellscape of censorship?
It doesn't matter. It's an image.
It will not effect my life at all, but then again I am not bogged down in my own self-concern. It's the principle, a very precious one, that we are stomping on because Kurt Eichenwald would rather not follow medical advice.
originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
It comes down to intent. If you send someone something (a tweet, a letter, whatever) that you know will cause a physical reaction because of a condition that person has, then yes, you are responsible.
If I intentionally mail a person who is allergic to bees a box of bees and they get stung opening the mailbox and have to go to the hospital, who's fault is it?
It's an image. Images are not noxious, explosive, and they cannot sting you.
Intent is the key word here.
If I swing a punch at your face, but you are able to avoid it, I am still technically guilty of assault. If I know you are an epileptic and I send you a "flashy" image with the intent of causing you to have a seizure, then I am guilty IF you have a seizure. Especially if I "tag" the post with "You deserve a seizure..."
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AboveBoard
Well your feelings, though they do concern me, do not matter when it comes to principle. In fact I find the retreat into your feelings to be a common feature of what brought us to cases like this. This indifference to reality is taking its toll on society in general.
First we have homocide by text, and here we have assault by image (though cyberstalking is the charge). If the idea that words and images can maim or kill does not frighten you, then all your feelings are of self-concern.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AboveBoard
He sent the image to Kurt.
Via a reply to one of KE's tweets. The sender knew it could do great harm - it was his weapon of choice. He is guilty of cyberstalking.
Think of it as code sent to disrupt an electrical grid, namely Kurt's brain.
No one is suggesting that images be curated other than the T&C of a site. You are blowing this way out of proportion. Perhaps twitter will disallow this sort of seizure inducing flashing gif with an automatic account shut-down.
Explain how this would make your life a hellscape of censorship?
It doesn't matter. It's an image.
It will not effect my life at all, but then again I am not bogged down in my own self-concern. It's the principle, a very precious one, that we are stomping on because Kurt Eichenwald would rather not follow medical advice.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
It comes down to intent. If you send someone something (a tweet, a letter, whatever) that you know will cause a physical reaction because of a condition that person has, then yes, you are responsible.
If I intentionally mail a person who is allergic to bees a box of bees and they get stung opening the mailbox and have to go to the hospital, who's fault is it?
It's an image. Images are not noxious, explosive, and they cannot sting you.
Intent is the key word here.
If I swing a punch at your face, but you are able to avoid it, I am still technically guilty of assault. If I know you are an epileptic and I send you a "flashy" image with the intent of causing you to have a seizure, then I am guilty IF you have a seizure. Especially if I "tag" the post with "You deserve a seizure..."
Note you have to use physical violence for a metaphor for sending images in tweets. You are attempting to bend reality to justify an injustice.
Note: you have to use 0 physical violence for a guilty judgement on an assault. You are attempting to bend the law to justify your own interpretation of it.
Not really.
Epillepsy doesn't work like that, triggers aren't black and white. He had no problems with the screens etc...until someone intentionally tried to cause harm/kill him by trying to induce a seizure. It's hardly reasonable to expect Eichenwald to not use the internet because some troll wanted to kill him, remove his rights and freedoms just so you can grant them to people who actively try to kill or cause injury.
Yes its a despicable thing what jew_goldstein did, and it reveals anti-social behavior that is indicative of many trolls, but his crime is a tweet, posting an image. What we should not have is authorities curating twitter feeds, telling people what kind of images they may or may not be able to post, and especially throwing people in jail for tweeting.