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.

 

Man vs. Image – The Curious Case of Kurt Eichenwald

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: RomeByFire

Idiot.

What do you think the outcome is going to be if the case goes the way you'd like?

Images being censored.


Fortune teller prophecy logical fallacy.

You can't see the future, you're making that up as a fear tactic.

Or are you a part of the legal defense team and are aware of the situations complexities?

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Idiot.




posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

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


They already are. That's why I posted the link to the woman who cyber bullied her boyfriend into committing suicide.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TinySickTears

Again, I'll point to food allergies. I believe a person with an allergy has more of an obligation to limit his own exposure than the rest of society but that goes out the window if a person maliciously and deliberately exposes the allergic person to an allergen.


ok.
point all you want

was the dude who sent the pic a dick? yup
but mr seizure probably should have taken precautions to make sure he does not come across an image that is going to send him into a fit
my opinion.
not going to change it
dont really care to argue it anymore

good thread les

see ya



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: RomeByFire



My issue here is the "let's see if he dies," comment that you and your camp are conveniently rolling over and ignoring.

.


maybe he was using that new york city special language the president uses where he was only being sarcastic and blah blah he really didnt mean it that way

im not ignoring it. the dude said it...ok
i still dont see it as assault

now how about you address the point of the image blocker and lifestyle change.
if this dude was so at risk why was he not doing the whole lifestlye change and using an image block?
i know you cant say for sure but what is your opinion


I don't care how "you see it," you literally said two posts ago (I'll just quote you):


im just giving my opinion. i dont know how the laws are worded and dont really care.


You don't know how the law works, and you don't care that you don't know how the law works (in this specific instance).

Not wasting my time with you. Stick to "I'm just giving my opinion."



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I say we're already screwed.

Too many even here want words made illegal, images sent to be punished.




posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Pretend that I'm a hemophiliac and fall victim to a paper cut while opening a letter, bleed out and die. Should the sender be held responsible for knowing how sharp the paper was or am I at fault for not having thick enough skin?




posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I say we're already screwed.

Too many even here want words made illegal, images sent to be punished.



Images sent to be punished?

That explains Kathy Griffins image to a T.

Yes - many folks want and crave government censorship.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

From personal experience, I became photosensitive and it triggers painful reactions in my brain. One that makes you think you are dying. It's like breaking a bone, but in your brain, and it lasts.

The guy stated his intentions were murder.

Is the choice of weapon more important than the intention?

And I'm not advocating to banning images. That would be ridiculous. But aside from the choice of weapon, this is attempted murder. Why should it be tried otherwise?



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I say we're already screwed.

Too many even here want words made illegal, images sent to be punished.



That's a whole lot of blanket drama put down for specific criminal circumstances.

No one is trying to take away your protected 1st Amendment speech. If it makes you feel victimized by the terrible Other to think that then go for it - torture yourself with circumstances that have not and will not come about due to these rulings.




posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

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.


Comparing epilepsy to food allergies doesn't work. It's not the same.

Further it's a stretch to say the cause was the image, and not the condition. "Trigger" might be a better word.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I say we're already screwed.

Too many even here want words made illegal, images sent to be punished.



That's a whole lot of blanket drama put down for specific criminal circumstances.

No one is trying to take away your protected 1st Amendment speech. If it makes you feel victimized by the terrible Other to think that then go for it - torture yourself with circumstances that have not and will not come about due to these rulings.



It's ironic because these clowns want anything/everything anti-Trump censored and shut down.

They whine that "it's not big a deal," when a man goes on about "lets see if he dies, I know he's epileptic, we can't censor the image, that's wrong," but want pictures of Trump's head censored.

Can't have it both ways, partisan-hacks.



ETA: who remembers the Anthrax controversy?

I guess it should be defended to the teeth considering they were just sending some mail.

Man, this site is a #ing joke. Deny ignorance my ass.
edit on 18-6-2017 by RomeByFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
Pretend that I'm a hemophiliac and fall victim to a paper cut while opening a letter, bleed out and die. Should the sender be held responsible for knowing how sharp the paper was or am I at fault for not having thick enough skin?



Nope. Not even close. You would have to fall victim to someone trapping the letter with a blade of some sort - and they would have to write in the letter "I hope you bleed out and die" for it to be a crime.

Otherwise it is a mistake made by the letter opener.

I think that's what people are missing here - sending an image innocently, or in this case a letter, isn't going to be considered a crime at all ever - that would be silly! Sending a specifically targeted weapon with the intent to harm or kill will always be a crime, no matter how clever or diabolical the choice of weapon.




posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

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.


Comparing epilepsy to food allergies doesn't work. It's not the same.

Further it's a stretch to say the cause was the image, and not the condition. "Trigger" might be a better word.


The peanut doesn't "cause" the reaction, the condition does, so for someone afflicted with that allergy, a peanut can become a weapon.

If, however, someone innocently puts peanuts in that individual's sauce and they forgot to ask if there were any peanuts and didn't check the menu that said there were peanuts in it, the peanut is not a weapon and the person making the meal isn't guilty of criminal intent.

I have an allergy to a couple of things that can be serious if I get enough of them. One time I went to a party and accidentally ate something that had one of those ingredients. Needless to say it was my fault and no one slipped me a note along with my plate saying "I hope you die from this. Bon Apitite!"
edit on 18-6-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
Pretend that I'm a hemophiliac and fall victim to a paper cut while opening a letter, bleed out and die. Should the sender be held responsible for knowing how sharp the paper was or am I at fault for not having thick enough skin?



Not really a valid comparison given the intention. This is more like aiming a gun, shooting for the head and blaming the victim for not moving out of the way.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

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?


Well, based on US government logic - that would be the mail-mans fault because without the mailman the bee's would not have made it to the mailbox, so could not have been possibly opened. It is not the fault of the bee-box-maker. It is not the fault of the bee-box-opener. It is the fault of the bee-box-deliverer.

Same logic with guns and nation-building and social justice.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire

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


What kind of medical condition sends people into convulsions based on words that are said versus epileptic seizures?

Don't worry, I'll wait.



I am a lot more concerned about the medical condition that sends people into baseball fields or rock concerts or bridges fully locked-n-loaded with the intention of mowing down a particular demographic of humans because they happen to believe in a particular idea.

Someone having a convulsion effects me naught, someone having an epiphany that all [insert demographic] must immediately die/be killed is my concern, not for me but for the future I leave my children.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

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.


The difference here is still clear:

Getting a cold accidentally from a fellow student is different than a someone deliberately giving a piece of paper doused with a potentially deadly virus with the words "I hope you die" printed on it to an immune-suppressed person. The person giving the paper also has clearly stated they know the condition of the victim and is doing it to possibly kill them.

Seriously, the crime is with the intent to knowingly harm/kill.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join