Man vs. Image – The Curious Case of Kurt Eichenwald

a reply to: AboveBoard

It's not like we don't know what the intention was by sending the image.

Dude himself said (and I quote), "let's see if he dies."

This is a first for me. First time I've ever seen someone defend the actions of a man who purposefully sent an epileptic man an epileptic-seizure inducing image in the hopes of "let's see if he dies," while blaming the victim for being prone to epileptic-seizures.

If images are going to be considered harmful, then when are words going to be considered the same?

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.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Words and images can be weaponized.

A Massachusetts woman broke down in tears Friday as she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for goading her teenage boyfriend into killing himself. Michelle Carter now faces up to 20 years in prison when she's sentenced on Aug. 3.

Li nk

If you can't see the connection between the criminal use of a epilepsy trigger on a known epileptic, which is akin to sneaking a peanut to someone with a potentially deadly peanut allergy, I don't know what to tell you. When the gif was sent it was intended to do harm and it did! It was weaponized like a bullet to his brain. It sent him to the hospital (expensive) and he could not drive for months, possibly still can't.

My son just had his first grand mal seizure a couple of months ago. They are horrible and there is great danger in being surprised by one as you can easily injure yourself.

The man who sent that image with the intent to cause a seizure knowingly committed a criminal act to harm another human being.

It's not censorship to say that's illegal, it's the same as holding someone criminally accountable for putting a peanut in something that might kill or at least hospitalize a severely allergic person

As to Kurt's personal responsibility, the fact that he could have been more careful (and now is) does not eliminate the criminal intent that turned a tweet into a weaponized message. That is a weak argument and the courts agree.

(Kurt no longer opens his own messages or checks his own twitter feed. He's taken that step because there are horrible people in the world that attempt to harm him for their own pleasure by sending him weaponized messages.)

It's not akin to giving peanuts to someone who is allergic to them. An image cannot be weaponized. Sending an image is not illegal, whether it is flashing or not.

originally posted by: RomeByFire
a reply to: AboveBoard

It's not like we don't know what the intention was by sending the image.

Dude himself said (and I quote), "let's see if he dies."

This is a first for me. First time I've ever seen someone defend the actions of a man who purposefully sent an epileptic man an epileptic-seizure inducing image in the hopes of "let's see if he dies," while blaming the victim for being prone to epileptic-seizures.

I never defended his actions. I said the actions are morally wrong. But This isn't the first time I've seen people say images can be weapons.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

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.

Obviously they can if you have a certain condition. Its not about the medium used, whether twitter, a letter, or a box of bees.

Its about the intent to physically harm someone.

My point is one cannot physically harm someone with an image.

Eichenwald and other epileptics are, or should be, fully aware of the risks using certain devices, and viewing flashing lights.

But you CAN harm someone by sending an image and if you knowingly do so with the intent to harm them you are committing a crime. It's not a small thing. The guy obviously wanted to cause physical harm.

Just because the harm was caused by electronic media doesn't mean criminal intent and action hasn't occurred. Welcome to the age of the Internet.

Imagine a murder mystery where a clever cyber killer sends a special seizure inducing gif to an epileptic individual but then makes the message disappear entirely off the screen so no one is the wizer. Innocent person opens an email and BAM has a seizure, falls and hits their head and dies before anyone can see what happened. It's ruled as death by natural causes. The killer goes on to do this to several more people - a serial killer except not everyone dies, just some of his victims. He is finally caught.

You would agree that this is a situation where a criminal is victimizing people? That there is crimianl
intent?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Words and images can be weaponized.

A Massachusetts woman broke down in tears Friday as she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for goading her teenage boyfriend into killing himself. Michelle Carter now faces up to 20 years in prison when she's sentenced on Aug. 3.

Li nk

If you can't see the connection between the criminal use of a epilepsy trigger on a known epileptic, which is akin to sneaking a peanut to someone with a potentially deadly peanut allergy, I don't know what to tell you. When the gif was sent it was intended to do harm and it did! It was weaponized like a bullet to his brain. It sent him to the hospital (expensive) and he could not drive for months, possibly still can't.

My son just had his first grand mal seizure a couple of months ago. They are horrible and there is great danger in being surprised by one as you can easily injure yourself.

The man who sent that image with the intent to cause a seizure knowingly committed a criminal act to harm another human being.

It's not censorship to say that's illegal, it's the same as holding someone criminally accountable for putting a peanut in something that might kill or at least hospitalize a severely allergic person

As to Kurt's personal responsibility, the fact that he could have been more careful (and now is) does not eliminate the criminal intent that turned a tweet into a weaponized message. That is a weak argument and the courts agree.

(Kurt no longer opens his own messages or checks his own twitter feed. He's taken that step because there are horrible people in the world that attempt to harm him for their own pleasure by sending him weaponized messages.)

It's not akin to giving peanuts to someone who is allergic to them. An image cannot be weaponized. Sending an image is not illegal, whether it is flashing or not.

Grand Jury in the US is going to disagree with you on that one.

Got a problem with it, consult them, not ATS members.

Here in the States, there actually is federal legislation regarding flashing images and how they can induce seizure related convulsions.

Not like I have any empathy for the lower sending out seizure inducing images to people prone to seizures while saying "lets see if he dies."

Have fun defending people like that, lol, it reveals much of your character. Dude straight out confessed that he wanted to see if the man would die - this is not an issue of "flashing images," as much as you'd like to trivialize it into.

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.

Why wait, words don't do it, but I'm sure you and others will find a way to censor them regardless.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Words and images can be weaponized.

A Massachusetts woman broke down in tears Friday as she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for goading her teenage boyfriend into killing himself. Michelle Carter now faces up to 20 years in prison when she's sentenced on Aug. 3.

Li nk

If you can't see the connection between the criminal use of a epilepsy trigger on a known epileptic, which is akin to sneaking a peanut to someone with a potentially deadly peanut allergy, I don't know what to tell you. When the gif was sent it was intended to do harm and it did! It was weaponized like a bullet to his brain. It sent him to the hospital (expensive) and he could not drive for months, possibly still can't.

My son just had his first grand mal seizure a couple of months ago. They are horrible and there is great danger in being surprised by one as you can easily injure yourself.

The man who sent that image with the intent to cause a seizure knowingly committed a criminal act to harm another human being.

It's not censorship to say that's illegal, it's the same as holding someone criminally accountable for putting a peanut in something that might kill or at least hospitalize a severely allergic person

As to Kurt's personal responsibility, the fact that he could have been more careful (and now is) does not eliminate the criminal intent that turned a tweet into a weaponized message. That is a weak argument and the courts agree.

(Kurt no longer opens his own messages or checks his own twitter feed. He's taken that step because there are horrible people in the world that attempt to harm him for their own pleasure by sending him weaponized messages.)

It's not akin to giving peanuts to someone who is allergic to them. An image cannot be weaponized. Sending an image is not illegal, whether it is flashing or not.

BS. An image can be weaponized. That's why the guy is doing jail time. Sheesh. It's far more than a simple troll or morally wrong" if your intent is to cause physical harm. That's why the lady is going to jail for texting words that encouraged her boyfriend to kill himself. It was just a text - but her intent was to
Push a mentally i unstable and distressed person over the edge. These are both crimes using electronic media.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

Would sending ground up peanut dust with the intent to cause harm or death through the mail to an allergic individual be a crime?

Electronic communications sent with the intent to harm someone physically isn't just a d***k move, its assault.

not saying it is not a dick move but i dont see it as the same thing.
like an above member said, there are filters for that kind of thing.
the internet is full of flashy images so one would think if he was at risk when looking at those he would block them somehow.

you can invent any situation you want. ground up peanuts or any other thing you can think of.
im just giving my opinion. i dont know how the laws are worded and dont really care.

i dont agree that you can assault someone from your computer by sending some electronic #. i just dont agree

i also dont agree with the girl getting prison time. was she an asshole? sure
did she kill the guy? no

he could have put his phone down
this dude could have used a block or a filter or not used the god damn internet at all

what steps did this dude do to prevent this kind of thing from happening? when a person has an illness medicine and therapy are not the only measures that need to be taken. lifestyle changes are in order too

a reply to: AboveBoard

another case of living in bizarro world when people say words and images can be weaponized

#in crazy

addons.mozilla.org...

Block images and/or flash elements on a page. ,In 1 click you can choose if you want to see images or flash

lifestyle changes

his health should come first to him dont you think?
was he using something like this?
if not then i guess he was none too worried about a seizure

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

Why wait, words don't do it, but I'm sure you and others will find a way to censor them regardless.

Hahaha.

You were the one who brought up the concept of not only censoring words, but censoring images, when censorship wasn't even brought up.

Hey princess, what do I want censored? Where have I claimed this? Care to cite and/or point this out for me?

Or are you partaking in you usual foot-in-mouth routine and making random things up regarding random strangers on the internet?

I'm positive I haven't mentioned anything regarding censorship. Nice deflection, though.

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

Instead - you deflect to a primitive ultimatum based on partisan bollocks that really have nothing to do with the topic.

You're the one that claimed words will be censored because they can "harm," people, not me, bud. I'm a grown up, and that's some silly # right there.

However, epilepsy is a real medical condition that can be affected by strobing lights.

If a family member/friend of yours had epilepsy, I would happily bomb your IP in the form of a DDoS or nuking with images of flashing lights and I would make sure to include comments like "let's see if they die," and I would fully expect you to defend my actions - blame your own family members for having epilepsy.

Otherwise, you're absolutely full of #.

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.

a reply to: TinySickTears

I appreciate that is an opinion a reasonable person could have but the law disagrees.

I really do think the dude committed a criminal act with intent to harm, and that that is a reasonable and legally correct opinion.

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.

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

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

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.

Obviously they can if you have a certain condition. Its not about the medium used, whether twitter, a letter, or a box of bees.

Its about the intent to physically harm someone.

My point is one cannot physically harm someone with an image.

Eichenwald and other epileptics are, or should be, fully aware of the risks using certain devices, and viewing flashing lights.

Actually, one really can. People can be frightened to death, particularly those who have latent long QT or other cardiac abnormalities and never know it because they've heretofore remained asymptomatic. People can have disorders similar to photosensitive epilepsy and also remain asymptomatic until they find out in the worst possible way.

Now, if you're referring solely to those irresponsible neurological patients who actually know they've got a photosensitive condition and simply choose to dance with danger then yes, they should know better. This guy isn't secretive about his condition. He definitely should know better.

It sounds like more sensationalized media bull# to me, but you never know. I turned a trucker in to TDOT who was a patient in my ER who knew he was a severe epileptic with photosensitvity since childhood, and not only hid this fact from the state, but also refused to take his prescription medication. He landed in our trauma bay because he seized while driving and almost killed several people, including pedestrians. Technically, I broke the law. But # it...he doesn't have any business behind the wheel, period.

Having said that, however, if you deliberately send a strobing image that you know falls within the limits of known photosensitive epileptic trigger thresholds, after mentioning the outcome of a known epileptic should he view such an image, should he go to prison? No. But he should be charged with something because he did this with the full intent of attempting to do another person harm. Here's why:

His attempt was successful. So the chances are extremely high that he will graduate to something far more bold in the future if he gets away with it. He studied up on this. That shows premeditation. What could he plot and execute on the next person whose opinion he happens to disagree with? If he'd sent a random image just to be a smart-ass, that would just make him an immature asshole. But he didn't. He deliberately sent one that he knew would likely trigger a cerebral event. That makes him a person to be very wary of. As well as an asshole.

What I think we should do, is find some poor soul who suffers from epilepsy, and we should start nuking his IP with flashing and seizure-inducing images. We should make comments about how we're aware the man is an epileptic, and we should cheer on notions of "let's see if he dies."

Oh. And this should be done to a conservative member of Congress.

And afterwards, I expect the alt-right members on ATS to not only defend - but attack - the man who suffers from epileptic seizures because it's his own fault for being on the internet.

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.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: TinySickTears

I appreciate that is an opinion a reasonable person could have but the law disagrees.

I really do think the dude committed a criminal act with intent to harm, and that that is a reasonable and legally correct opinion.

yeah well fair enough
i tend to not agree with all the laws just cause they are laws

that argument does not work with me by default

my opinion does not matter in the big picture but it is still my opinion

laws are wrong and way off all the time imo. these seems to be one of those times

i dont see how you can assault someone from a different physical location, electronically