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

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My oldest son has severe trypophobia. So anything pod like kills him to see.

This image would send him into a panic attack:

I'd hate to think we are moving in a direction where sending him that image would get you arrested, though.

And if someone sends him that maliciously to give him a panic attack, brags about it on social media, they could be guilty of cyberstalking. Especially if they try to get other people to do it too in order to torment him.

I hope that everyone at ATS takes note of this.

I have seen some avatars on here that could be seizure inducing.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My oldest son has severe trypophobia. So anything pod like kills him to see.

This image would send him into a panic attack:

I'd hate to think we are moving in a direction where sending him that image would get you arrested, though.

Thats actually gross. But i strangely like looking at it.

Its only going to get interesting when and if it goes to trial.
It will be tried in the Northern District of Texas (Federal Court).
Either way, the general public will lose some freedom in the outcome.

Buck

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Seizures can kill or cause brain damage. They are not to be taken lightly. They can also kill or wound secondarily if someone falls and sustains a head injury. A quick google search on "seizure disorder death" will demonstrate this.

If someone knows you have a peanut allergy that could be deadly with even minor exposure, and they Mail peanut flour to you in an envelope, is that not a personal attack?

If someone knowingly and maliciously sends a strobing light to someone with a seizure disorder, that is a very personal and dangerous attack.

I do not agree with you are Les Mis on this one. It is a crime.

That's false. If he has a risk of photosensitize epileptic seizures, he should know the risk of looking at screens. It's his own fault.

He was sent a message via twitter and clicked to open it and that is how he was attacked. It was not in his twitter feed from what I gather. That is a direct attack. The perpetrator stated in the message "I hope you have a seizure from this." Or something to that effect. It was intentional, personal and pointed.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My oldest son has severe trypophobia. So anything pod like kills him to see.

This image would send him into a panic attack:

I'd hate to think we are moving in a direction where sending him that image would get you arrested, though.

And if someone sends him that maliciously to give him a panic attack, brags about it on social media, they could be guilty of cyberstalking. Especially if they try to get other people to do it too in order to torment him.

I don't want to live in a world where people are no longer expected to take their own safety and comfort into their hands. If i was being harassed on FB, i'd not use FB. Just like if i was being harassed at a certain bar, i'd not go to that bar.

Although I don't go to any bars. But you get my drift.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I want to agree with you, but I have a hard time reconciling this.

It was an attack that resulted in an injury.

It's not 'hurt feelings' or just upsetting someone.

This altered a level of consciousness. It was deliberate.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
I hope that everyone at ATS takes note of this.

I have seen some avatars on here that could be seizure inducing.

Sorry.

I don't mean to cause any seizures. Just slight twichiness and eye crossing.

What is the difference between sending a picture that would trigger an epilepsy event and sending an envelope filled with a mild version of the Bird Flu?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My oldest son has severe trypophobia. So anything pod like kills him to see.

This image would send him into a panic attack:

I'd hate to think we are moving in a direction where sending him that image would get you arrested, though.

And if someone sends him that maliciously to give him a panic attack, brags about it on social media, they could be guilty of cyberstalking. Especially if they try to get other people to do it too in order to torment him.

I don't want to live in a world where people are no longer expected to take their own safety and comfort into their hands. If i was being harassed on FB, i'd not use FB. Just like if i was being harassed at a certain bar, i'd not go to that bar.

Although I don't go to any bars. But you get my drift.

I understand what you are saying however it was a private message, from what I remember. It wasn't something in his twitter feed.

Yes, life has risks and, yes, he must look after his own safety, but was opening an email maliciously designed to give him a seizure something expected?
No. He was attacked. It was malicious and stated directly that the person sending it wanted to harm him.

Should there be no consequence for actively, maliciously and with obvious intent causing physical harm to someone?

Does the person sending the email bear no responsibility because it's everyone else's responsibility to take care of their own safety?

If I walk into a place I think is safe and get attacked, am I at fault?? It was a private message on twitter. Should Kurt give up using twitter because of this hideous person's actions, or should he use the law to defend himself and prevent this from happening to himself, and possibly others, by standing up to the bully??

The law is already in place regarding cyberstalking so he's not causing new laws to be enacted or further restricting anyone beyond the bounds of what is already expected.

While I respect your opinion, I guess I just really disagree with you on this one, bfft. Criminal behavior deserves a proper response. It's what the rule of law is all about.





Okay final edit here. I'm wrong. It was in his twitter feed.
He no longer looks at his twitter feed. He is still active on twitter so someone must screen it for him. He is protecting himself from further incidents.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Huh. I thought it was just the leftwingers that were upset enough to go after somebody physically.

Weird.

crazy knows no bounds. it crosses all lines and parties.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You absolutely can be charged, and convicted due to online attacks..a POS from the Netherlands was just sent away for just under 11 years for cyber bullying and extortion..they never met.
One of his victims killed herself.
www.cbc.ca...

An assault that is expected to cause serious bodily harm or death is a class A felony. Provoking a seizure could be a class B felony. Sending someone an image known to cause seizures that includes an implied or direct threat exposing clear intent is enough to convict whether it's using the internet or any other means. It should classified as an assault in my opinion. I doubt a jury will look very kindly on the perpetrator. The person who did this should already be locked up.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
An assault that is expected to cause serious bodily harm or death is a class A felony. Provoking a seizure could be a class B felony. Sending someone an image known to cause seizures that includes an implied or direct threat exposing clear intent is enough to convict whether it's using the internet or any other means. It should classified as an assault in my opinion. I doubt a jury will look very kindly on the perpetrator. The person who did this should already be locked up.

i agree. will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. could end up setting a new precedent for the future. to think everyone thought the movie about cell phones killing people was ridiculous not so long ago, but here we have a case that shows just how crazy tech can be

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?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Might not matter in the eyes of the courts..it's about intent. A person could try to unsuccessfully shoot someone and obviously still be charged.
Strange thing but I know 3 people as of late who have been suffering seizures and it is no f'ing joke.

This is exactly how it went down....

If seeing pictures of Hillary puts me into uncontrollable laughing fits do I have a case??

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm in the same boat as you: I see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, he could just stay off Twitter. On the other hand, a deliberate attempt by one party was made to cause a physical response in the other party. If this was done by mail, would we simply say "don't check your mail?"

The need for people to take their own safety into their own hands is balanced out by the need for people to be able to live their lives in a free way, rather than telling them to stop doing something because somebody else might abuse it.

Using Texan's bar analogy: sure, you should avoid a bar that somebody wants to do you harm in. But should you have to avoid that bar? Or should you be free to go to that bar as you please?

I've found that sending them pictures of DJT in the Oval Office achieves the desired outcome.
And its legal.

Buck