Man vs. Image – The Curious Case of Kurt Eichenwald

a reply to: AboveBoard

But it is an image on his computer, a device that he and only he has control over, a device that has sufficient warning, a device that warrants caution for epileptics, especially when people are sending flashing images. This is a danger epileptics have to deal with. According to epilepsy.com:

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.

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.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

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?

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: 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

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.

BS.

Nice try though to make your defense of an indefensible action about some " higher principle" when we are discussing a directed attack on an individual that could have been deadly.

Putting your priority on some theoretical future censorship rather than illegal cyberstalking that physically hurt someone is disgusting. Seriously.

Poorly done, LM.

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: 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.

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.

This isn't about my "feelings" silly, it's about what is and isn't a crime based on a logical interpretation of the law.

In the digital age, people are figuring out new ways to torture, humiliate, slander, libel, harm and otherwise crush their fellow humans.

It stands to reason that " just words" (goading an unstable individual towards suicide) and "just images" are being more widely considered for criminal activity.

The idea that words cannot harm is ridiculous! Words start wars, words start violence, words start Revolutions as much as they can inspire and uplift and engender hope. Words can do great psychological harm. Words can deceive.

Words are not neutral. Words can be weaponized.

Images are not neutral. Images can be weaponized.

Porno images of children are criminal, as they should be, not only due to the incredible loathsome harm done in making them but the sickness supported by and horrific criminality engendered and perpetuated by disseminating them.

These are criminal images, no? Not "just images." So we can establish that SOME images rise to the level of known harm and abuse, and not just in the making of them, but in the viewing of them as well. Right?

In the case of child porn it is ubiquitously harmful on multiple levels, and in the case of flashing gifs it is more specifically harmful to a certain known population. In the case of cyberstalking it can sometimes be harmful to just one person.

Sending private images of a former partner with the intent to humiliate them and perhaps effect their future relationships or employment is not a neutral act, but a harmful, spiteful and possibly criminal one. It is a cyberstalking act.

Flashing images are well known to cause harm to individuals with epilepsy. Therefore, an image such as this can be weaponized to do harm to an individual with epilepsy. Deliberately exposing someone to that image with a malicious intent to cause physical harm makes that gif not "just an image" but transforms it to a method of abuse, a weapon, and demonstrates criminality on the part of the sender.

Hurting people deliberately with malicious premeditated intent to harm or kill is a crime. To say it isn't is simply wrongheaded.

These are very logical arguments. Your arguments seem fear based and emotional to me, as they project some dystopian future censorship that this KE case will be used as precedent to take away your 1st Amendment right to free speech.

I'm sorry, but I can't distort the law to make you feel less afraid, to do so would be to protect criminal behavior and allow harm to vulnerable populations.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Words cannot be weaponized. If so, strike me down right here right now. But truth be told, you cannot, because what you speak is superstitious nonsense, attributing magical properties to articulated guttural sounds, groups of pixelated letters, and scratches on paper. There is nothing logical about what you are selling.

I’m not American. I have no first amendment right. But free speech is the underlying principle of the first amendment, not to mention free societies. You and others have taken it for granted, even spitting on it, while others have given their lives to defend it. But you’re too busy enjoying your freedoms that you have no time nor care to defend them.

Again, as pointed out, he is not charged with intent to harm or kill. That is a ruse I suspect Eichenwald himself told the New York Times. Who then is distorting the law here? You.

Though I agree with the sentiment that sending someone something(even an image) to do bodily harm is unjust. But this opens up doors for a whole other set of issues. Current liberalism as it is would be more than happy to start labeling other images they don't like as mentally harmful. Like a flag, a slogan on a shirt, or a picture of a politician. We are already seeing this happen...

This wouldn't be a problem if liberalism in it's current form didn't always have to be kept in check. As the OP hinted at. We as a society for the last 20 years have been continually pushing back this idea that the collective is more important than the individual and that someone deemed as oppressed has the right to oppress others.

a reply to: JAY1980

It isn't just "liberalism". Remember the horrible Kathy Griffith "joke" featuring Trump's bloody head?

Free speech can be advocated for without making criminal behavior ok.

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.

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.

If I obeyed every single piece of medical advice for my epilepsy I wouldn't e able to wash, cook, clean, go up stairs etc....but I don't because I'd rather have a life and for the most part the condition is managable.


Seems to me you're fabricating the claim his neurologists told him not to use computers. Where's the evidence?

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.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

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.

I'm not interpreting the law. You are. I'm talking about reality.

Can you name one other person in the history of the universe who has assaulted someone with an image?

a reply to: bastion

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.

No one said he has to stop using the internet. It's his life, his condition, and he can manage it how he wishes. It's not for anyone else to manage for him.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

So if i shoot you without realizing you were wearing a bulletproof vest by your logic im not guilty.

The fact of the matter is the kurt has epilepsy and is known to have it, and the sender of the gif purposely sent a strobelight hoping to trigger kurts epilepsy along with a note saying, effectively, heres a stribelight gif, die epileptic.
.others have brought uo the food allergie, but the best metaphor is actually aboveboards with the defenseless woman walking in an alleyway.

Kurt should have known better especially after recieving a reported 40 prior attempts to trigger such a reaction. Yes he should have had a blocker. Yes he was negligent. But the gif was still sent with the intent to kill and or harm, knowing it could potentially do so due to kurts known medical condition. Kurts negligence does not and should not erase the gif senders criminal intent, however neither do i think kurt is entirely blame free here. Case in point, woman in the alley should have known better tried her luck and paid for it, perhaps getting robbed raped and killed. She shouldnhave known better but the killer is still gonna be caught and forced to amend for his crime.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

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.

Agreed except for the bolded line, emphasis mine. thats what dbcowboy was getting at, and the blurry line from there into words. Unfortunately in todays political climate it is all to easy to imagine such a thing happening and sheeple allowing it.

Logic tells us that banning certain imagesor curating twitter feeds as a blanket procedure in response to the specific case of a tweet containing a strobelight to a known epileptic is nothing more than an excuse to garner control. What is not being discussed is the legality of twitter message or gifs IN GENERAL, but in this very specific case with the stated intention of harm. No matter what the weapon is if you know you can kill someone and try to do so you are commiting a criminal act whether its with a gif to an epileptic, peanut butter to and allergic, or kryptonite to superman