Proving intent in most cases, is extremely costly and difficult. Are you familiar with the concept of 'precedent' in criminal law?
If some goofy, or troubled and confused child, plants jalapeno peppers in his yard, with the intent that that Shia Labeouf hitchhikes across the country, develops an allergy to Jalapenos and trespasses and picks the jalapenos and wipes them all over his face and dies, should the government allocate resources, obtain warrants, and investigate said intent?
The internet contains mechanisms to completely obfuscate identity, to varying degrees, with ease; anyone can access it, there is virtually no accountability in many cases. There are no qualifications required, no definitive rules, no required courses, and there is no required key or credential to partake. It provides more abstraction, more distance between parties, less immediate responses, less certainty of truth, and very few implications are inherently evident to the naive. It is easier to make the decision to take action, and more dangerous, in every facet I can think of, than firearms are. We definitely need to issue certifications, credentials, consequences, training course mandates and massive regulations asap. Aside from the epileptic, I know of someone who experience transient psychosis, often leading to complete mental breakdown, upon seeing images of kittens. The doctors have been thus far unable to identify the root cause of the condition, but kitten pictures are extremely risky. He's only ten years old, and his mom lets him browse 4chan for twelve hours a day, and is in grave danger. I think any condition affecting more than seven people, need be addressed; INTERNET KILLS.
Is the word 'fantasy' commonly used to describe future, similar cases in the legal world? Are you familiar with the word 'implications' or 'citations' in the English language? How about 'money', 'foolishness', 'wastefulness' or 'petty'? The phrase: 'insufferable ignorance'?