Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure • Hacker News Board

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#21

Post by concinds » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 8:19 PM UTC

The AssociatesMind article[0] on this is much better than the ArsTechnica link, and goes into detail in the legal dimension of this question. In this case, Kurt's situation likely constitutes assault; and this would also likely be considered assault even if you believe that Eichenwald lied about having a seizure, as I've seen some people question.

Here's the conclusion of that article:

"Just as someone can be held liable for a spring-gun despite being miles away, there is no reason to think that someone cannot be held liable for assault delivered electronically across great distances."

[0]: http://associatesmind.com/2016/12/16/can-you-sue-someone-for...

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#22

Post by antidaily » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 8:23 PM UTC

concinds wrote: post #8

Twitter has a prominent checkbox in the setting allowing you to turn off autoplaying of videos and GIFs. Given that most are not epileptic, and that Eichenwald is, he should have had the mindfulness to check whether the platform could be adapted to his needs.

Prominence of that setting is debatable.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#23

Post by celticninja » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 8:23 PM UTC

unfathomable wrote: post #12

iaw wrote: post #5

Wow, this is equivalent to sending someone a mail "bomb" that doesn't explode but electrocutes them severely. I hope the offender ends up with a reasonable length prison sentence. There's a clear line, and the intentional infliction of physical harm is well beyond it.

So to be clear, you want someone to be imprisoned because they sent a tweet.

If you think that is what is happening here then you should probably go back to using your crayons. This is entirely different to sending a normal tweet, or even an offensive tweet.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#24

Post by jadell » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 8:24 PM UTC

unfathomable wrote: post #20

So precautions for preventing a death for a health condition you have are supposed to be put on everyone else? No one forced him to watch the gif. If anything it's twitters fault for autoplaying the images.

So if you're standing in an area, and I start firing bullets into that area while shouting "You deserve to be shot!", you're saying the onus was on you to not be in that area when I started shooting?

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#25

Post by mmastrac » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 8:24 PM UTC

unfathomable wrote: post #20

So precautions for preventing a death for a health condition you have are supposed to be put on everyone else? No one forced him to watch the gif. If anything it's twitters fault for autoplaying the images.

If it is public knowledge you are allergic to peanuts and I intentionally throw some at you, that's clearly intent to cause harm. Intent is a big factor in law.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#26

Post by concinds » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 8:25 PM UTC

antidaily wrote: post #22

concinds wrote: post #8

Twitter has a prominent checkbox in the setting allowing you to turn off autoplaying of videos and GIFs. Given that most are not epileptic, and that Eichenwald is, he should have had the mindfulness to check whether the platform could be adapted to his needs.

Prominence of that setting is debatable.

The checkbox is present in Twitter's main settings page (the one you land on immediately after clicking "Settings", not a subsection) and is also above-the-fold.

Also, I just found out he said a few months ago: "I was carrying my iPad, looking at the still image on the video and, without thinking, touched the PLAY button."

So it seems he's aware of it.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#27

Post by iaw » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 8:26 PM UTC

unfathomable wrote: post #12

iaw wrote: post #5

Wow, this is equivalent to sending someone a mail "bomb" that doesn't explode but electrocutes them severely. I hope the offender ends up with a reasonable length prison sentence. There's a clear line, and the intentional infliction of physical harm is well beyond it.

So to be clear, you want someone to be imprisoned because they sent a tweet.

To be quite clear: YES.

Let's go over what the attacker did (and note, I'm not even going to touch the anti-semitism component).

They demonstrated premeditation, this appeared to be a second attempt at a prior failed attack.

The intent was to cause serious injury.

Max penalties for these types of things is ~10 years in prison.

Hypothetical : Let's say I had an powerful/advanced sniper rifle where I can target a specific person and cause them to have a seizure. Let's say I use this rifle from across state lines. Should I not be getting a visit from the FBI and ending up in federal prison?

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#28

Post by iaw » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #18

unfathomable wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So to be clear, you want someone to be imprisoned because they sent a tweet.

Yes. This is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theatre [1] or phoning in a bomb threat. In the United States, freedom of speech is limited in certain cases where the harm caused by the speech outweighs the damage of limiting freedom. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

I actually think it's worse than your examples, one could argue that the harm caused in those instances are because of recklessness.

In this case the person intended to inflict harm on another specific person.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#29

Post by unfathomable » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

jadell wrote: post #24

unfathomable wrote: post #20

So precautions for preventing a death for a health condition you have are supposed to be put on everyone else? No one forced him to watch the gif. If anything it's twitters fault for autoplaying the images.

So if you're standing in an area, and I start firing bullets into that area while shouting "You deserve to be shot!", you're saying the onus was on you to not be in that area when I started shooting?

Yes. I would have probably done something deserving of being open fired upon. Probably I had called a huge portion of the country "deplorable" continuously.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#30

Post by celticninja » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

unfathomable wrote: post #20

So precautions for preventing a death for a health condition you have are supposed to be put on everyone else? No one forced him to watch the gif. If anything it's twitters fault for autoplaying the images.

So much stupidity here. If Twitter are responsible for autoplaying then the sender is more responsible because they sent it.

But seriously can't you see that the sender knew that it could cause the receiver harm, their tweet stated that was their intent, it caused harm, they are therefore responsible for that outcome.

Imagine I flew a drone into someone and they were hurt by it. I knew flying the drone I to them would hurt them, but I didn't make the drone, I didn't make the power that enabled it to fly. I didn't make people fragile enough to be hurt by the drone. But I directed it with intent, just like the sender did in this situation.