FBI arrests man for (sending) seizure-inducing tweet to Dallas journalist Kurt Eichenwald

a reply to: Shamrock6

Thats the only sticking point: that this little psychopath stated his intent to cause harm.

Its hard to find a logical test for this, because there just aren't any other instances I can think of where an image causes potentially deadly reactions.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yea it's definitely a strange case to try and puzzle out. Taking out the whole left/right aspect of it doesn't really do anything to swing it one way or the other definitively for me, because it's still just a unique situation.

Fortunately we've got the government here to explain everything to us, though. They always get it right.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Take the whole left/right out of it and you have an individual intent on causing physical harm (not emotional harm) to another individual.

That is an infringement of individual rights.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Shamrock6

Take the whole left/right out of it and you have an individual intent on causing physical harm (not emotional harm) to another individual.

That is an infringement of individual rights.

Yea, I think that is where Im at. His responsibility to protect himself is irrelevant when the stated intent is to do harm.

Not sure that there is a legal recourse that makes sense. Cyberstalking sure doesn't.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yea, I think that's the end sum of it as well.

Well that's that figured out I suppose. Augie will be sad we didn't even need him and his rolled up pants legs to do it, too.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Can dude prove that the tweet actually gave him a seizure?

Who wants to bet that leftists wont be crying 'seizure, FBI get em' via all kinds of stupid stuff from now on?

Yes. He had a seizure and his wife had to get him help. There is medical documentation of this. He won't be able to drive for a month.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Shamrock6

Take the whole left/right out of it and you have an individual intent on causing physical harm (not emotional harm) to another individual.

That is an infringement of individual rights.

Infringement of rights via tweet. Life must be good.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So what do you think is the course of action here? the sender admitted his intent to injure!
Inducing a seizure is no f'ing joke..it's a strange new world we are in.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Shamrock6

Take the whole left/right out of it and you have an individual intent on causing physical harm (not emotional harm) to another individual.

That is an infringement of individual rights.

Infringement of rights via tweet. Life must be good.

If someone sent you an actual letter that was designed to inflict harm upon the individual opening it, would you casually dismiss it as just a "letter"?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Shamrock6
..
Its hard to find a logical test for this, because there just aren't any other instances I can think of where an image causes potentially deadly reactions.

A flashing/strobing image CAN lead to a seizure in someone who has a disorder such as epilepsy.
And this can lead to severe damage, including death.

Here is one source from a quick Google. There are other sources on epilepsy/medical sites, but this one specifically discusses web images:
webaim.org...

Graphics That Cause Seizures
Important

Bright, strobing images or media can cause photoepileptic seizures. Seizures can be dangerous, even life-threatening. Don't be responsible for causing them.

In order to potentially cause a seizure by users with photosensitive epilepsy, a flashing image or multimedia must:

Flash more than 3 times per second (note that Section 508 specifies 2 times per second).
Be sufficiently large. A very small flashing image, such as a cursor, will not cause a seizure.
Bright. There must be significant contrast between the flashes

Additionally, the color red is also more likely to cause a seizure. While large, flashing images are not commonplace on the web. Seizure-inducing media is, however, becoming more common in web video, especially HD-quality video that includes strobing special effects. Such media must be avoided!

Why Do Flashing Images Cause Seizures?

Here's the CT behind this;
"Vigilante Journalism: My ‘Unethical’ Public Crusade Proving Kurt Eichenwald Viewed Child Porn 22+ Times"
Source

------------------------------

2007 - "Eichenwald's Weird Checkbook Journalism"

Journalist Kurt Eichenwald is making news again with his Dec. 19, 2005, New York Times wowser about child pornography on the Internet ("Through His Webcam, a Boy Joins a Sordid Online World"). But this time the news is bad for the reporter and his former paper.

A Times Editors' Note published this week explains that Eichenwald gave a $2,000 check to former child-porn performer Justin Berry, the primary subject of the big story. That's one bad. Reporters aren't supposed to give money to sources. But Eichenwald also didn't tell his editors about the transaction. That's two bads.

continued

Captured from Eichenwald's testimony, this narrative holds that Eichenwald didn't consider himself a reporter when he contacted Berry. He didn't consider himself a reporter when he sent Berry money. He didn't consider himself a reporter when he flew to Los Angeles to meet Berry. He didn't consider himself a reporter even when he told Berry he worked for the New York Times. But presto chango, he was a reporter as soon as Berry decided he wanted out of porn.

Source

Im curious how long it'll take to have apps created to kill animations, or blur or alter the appearance of flashing happening in a specific frequency range? You know....you're watching a video and somewhere in the view of the video is a strobing effect that could induce a seizure. This program would filter it so the image was somehow obscured.

It would require that the app streamed your media for you.

Im surprised adobe or someone hasn't done this already as a standard. The free market is all about meeting customer needs. Seems like this is a hole in the market.