Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Will Hand Over Data On the User Who Sent a Seizure-Inducing Tweet To a Journalist (theverge.com)
Last week, an unidentified Twitter user tweeted a seizure-inducing animation at Newsweek and Vanity Fair writer Kurt Eichenwald, who has epilepsy. Now, Eichenwald has taken the first step toward identifying the user. In response to a civil suit filed by Eichenwald this week in Dallas district court, Twitter has agreed to hand over all relevant subscriber data for the user in question. The attack came in apparent retaliation for Eichenwald's aggressive coverage of President-elect Trump. From a report on the Verge: While Eichenwald has yet to file criminal charges, the civil suit was sufficient for an ex parte order from the district judge. Twitter subsequently agreed to expedited relief, declining to challenge the order or demand further evidence from Eichenwald. The next step is likely to be a lawsuit against wireless carriers or service providers implicated by Twitter's records, who will have records linking IP addresses and other metadata to the attacker's legal name.
Is it to late for me to file suit against the creators of all those geocities home pages I viewed back in the day?
When tweeting seizure-inducing animations becomes a crime, only criminals will tweet seizure-inducing animations.
Shouldn't we be aghast? We want tech companies to resist the courts, not comply.
Depends on the circumstances. This sounds reasonable, it was a deliberate, targeted attempt to cause physical harm to someone.
The sender is liable for damages?
If the sender removes the peanut warning label and intends to do harm, yes.
Seriously, what a stupid question, think about it before you just start typing shit that comes into your head.
...did the tweet actually cause him to have a seizure? Or did it just hurt his feelings?
It caused him to seize! The person responsible should be brought up on assault charges at the very least...
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
People not thinking about the stupid shit they're saying is why we're discussing this article in the first place. That's how we got into this mess.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
There was a post on his account claiming to be his wife saying they filed a police report. Media has investigated and can fin no evidence of a report filed with various relevant police departments.
Twitter's legal team may have reviewed the case and decided that the request had merit, or that resisting would be unlikely to succeed.
If Eichenwald was a Trump supporter then Twitter would have fought to the death to protect the sender.
Exactly. One of the pillars of a criminal prosecution is intent. It's one thing to send out a seizure-inducing animation to someone, unaware that this was produce a seizure. It's another thing to target someone who you know is an epileptic with the clear intent to cause harm.
This isn't like someone sending someone with a nut allergy a candy bar with nuts in it. This is like sending someone you know has a peanut allergy a loaf of bread laced with peanut oil, with the intent of either harming or killing them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Maybe. Did you know the person had a peanut allergy? Did you intentionally send them a candy bar with peanuts in it? Did you intend to cause them harm by sending the peanut laden bar? Did you send the bar in a a way that the person was likely to be effected by the peanuts in the course of normal life?
The devil is in the details. Your example can easily be a good-faith mistake, but the tweet doesn't seem to be a mistake.
So people who intend to cause harm to an epileptic should be protected by companies? Interesting. What if you got a letterbomb via UPS and UPS was refusing to hand over info on the sender to the FBI, would you laud them for that?
Nor any evidence of a seizure.
If you commit a crime under partial anonymity (which is what a Twitter account is), and a warrant is issued by a judge to unmask you, then that is how the system is supposed to work. Anonymity is not, nor should it ever be an effective means of evading prosecution for criminal acts. Yes, there need to be limits such as not allowing warrantless access to data or back doors in encryption, but providing it is technically possible to unveil the perpetrator and the police have gone through the appropriate judicial channels (to assure judicial oversight), then what could your problem possibly be.
This is like arguing that if someone mails you a letter bomb, but he puts a fake return address on it, trying to determine the attacker's true identity somehow violates his privacy rights.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
My heart says... go get that bastard who did this.
My head says... that's a violation of privacy expectations. No one expects their details to be released to other users of the system. In this case it was perhaps justified, but if they open the door there will be other requests for private information, some less just.
Just because it is on the internet does not automatically convey the right to privacy. I'm all in favour of anonymous services to protect freedom of speech, etc. but I expect the right to privacy walking down a public street. If someone assaults me on that street, I don't care about his right to privacy, I want him arrested.
The information about the aggressor should go to the police, not the victim. I'm all for that. I have a problem with it going to the victim.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
No one expects their details to be released to other users of the system.
This is not just "another user." It is the legal system, investigating an alleged assault.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
You (and the summary) leave out some significant info.
First - They've done this to him multiple times since September, knowing he has siesures
Second - They've threatened to murder him, even left things on his doorstep
Third - They broke into his Daughters school, leaving messages addressed to him threatening his daughter.
Details are important, and this is far past the line for being able to prosecute criminally for harassment and threatening harm.
Ah, the alt-right, back to blaming victims.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Not really the same. The post was literally "you deserve a seizure".
It is interesting that infohazards will likely be handled legally about as they should be.
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/...
No, this victim of an attack is a victim. However you feel about the severity of the attack, this was targetted and Eichenwald is not "personally responsible" for the messages sent his way.
If the local police knew a person had epilepsy and turned on their lights for no other reason than to try and induce a seizure in said person and stated that that was the reason and that they hoped it would cause a seizure, then yes I would expect that person to be filing a lawsuit of some sort.
Doesn't mean they would win such a lawsuit of course...
"prosecution for criminal acts" - is sending an animation a criminal act? TFA provides little in the way of detail regarding the animation. Is it something intentionally crafted to induce seizures in epilepsy sufferers? Is it something intentionally crafted for another purpose that has the peculiar side effect of inducing seizures in epilepsy sufferers? If the latter, does the fact that it was sent via Twitter (and apparently targeted) matter? Would it be better or worse for the epilepsy sufferer if the animation was displayed on a giant screen in Times Square?
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Since this appears to be a civil suit, then yes, suing the perpetrator means the victim get's the alleged perpetrator's identity. It's still a court ultimately ordering the identity of the individual be revealed. Why would a civil court not have the same power to compel Twitter as a criminal court?
Here's a tip for anyone thinking of pulling a stunt like this, don't do it. You will very likely end up in either in a criminal or civil court, or possibly both. If common decency won't restrain you, then how about self-preservation?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is typical of our 'everyone is a victim', 'everyone gets a participation trophy' society. Nobody takes personal responsibility anymore for anything. It's symptomatic of the collapse of the USA as a former world power.
No. This is an example of someone specifically targeting the human with prior knowledge of him having epilepsy.
While some of his Tweets have been questionable in their content, what is the real problem with cutting the press corps out of the process? They were there to disseminate information, from the president to the people. The press corps serves no purpose now. We know for a fact that as far as large media outlets go, you can only get partisans. Left or Right, does not matter. Get rid of the press corps.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
back to blaming victims.
The problem with "stop victim blaming!!!" is that it ignores the many times when the victim is partially to blame for getting into a situation to begin with, especially if they escalated the situation with their own actions.
It's going to be around for at least 4 more years as it's the only way Trump can communicate with the outside world.
It would be assault, yes.
In this case it appears to be a lawsuit, but at the end of the day if the court deems this a legitimate case, criminal or civil, then the court has the authority to order Twitter to reveal whatever identifying data it may have on the defendant/accused.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes, it was a flashing GIF that said, 'you deserve a seizure'. This was a deliberate attack.
http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/twitter-seizure.jpg
If "seizure-inducing" speech is prosecutable now, we better all become "seizure-inducing haters", before the First Amendment is dead and buried.
They could not quite get at it with "hate speech" bans, they are attacking it with "seizures" now...
Maybe read the article...
Getting into an online pissing match doesn't mean you suddenly gain the right to assault people.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
" Is it something intentionally crafted to induce seizures in epilepsy sufferers?"
That's exactly what it was, so yeah, pretty certain you can show 'intent to harm', thus assault.
Not surprising since video content on Twitter is all click-to-play. (GIFs are auto-converted to MP4s by Twitter.)
Meaning in order to trigger his supposed seizure, he had to have clicked on a play button on a video that says "you deserve a seizure."
It did.
Isn't this protected by the bizarro 4th amendment?
The 4th amendment protects against illegal search and seizure. Properly gathering evidence as part of an investigation of an alleged crime is in fact legal.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Would it be insensitive to call this a newsflash?
Yeah what the person responsible did was intentional harm, and I fully believe charges should be placed for it.
However, the bigger question comes, will this lead to the path of having any animation that can induce seizures anywhere online become legally liable?
It's always a problem, the first part makes sense, what it lets people do after is concerning. It's like schools, a child may have a peanut allergy, henceforth peanuts are completely banned from a school distract. I understand if a child within that school itself has an allergy to ban it from that school, but they'll blanket an entire distract with it flat out. More and more this world seems to be pushing towards the needs of the one out weighing the needs of the many.
I hope the person responsible is persecuted, but that nothing beyond that stems from the ruling.
In my experience, video on Twitter begins to play once it is fully scrolled in.
Sure. Care to provide example of the proverbial "other foot"?
Exactly. One of the pillars of a criminal prosecution is intent. It's one thing to send out a seizure-inducing animation to someone, unaware that this was produce a seizure. It's another thing to target someone who you know is an epileptic with the clear intent to cause harm.
I'm not so sure the intent is that clear. I would think it highly unlikely that a sender believes it will induce seizures, because that takes exposure time, and the subject will simply look away. I think it more likely that the intent was to provoke the recipient.
Much like dumping a bucket of water on someone is likely not an attempt to drown them, even if you know they fear drowning and can't swim. It would be technically possible for someone to drown that way, but highly unlikely.
A false sense of persecution.
They believe that Twitter, who has willingly harbored their Nazi organization is somehow against them because one of their members who threatened to kill all jews and muslims was banned for a week over his threat.
Definition of assault that includes sending flashing gifs is controversial. Until there is a grand jury determination that assault possibly happened, Twitter is just taking sides in a civil dispute.
I hope you're equally outraged when it's on the other foot.
Well I certainly would be. Are you saying that you don't find it appalling for someone to deliberately try to induce a seizure in someone in response to an argument, regardless of 'foot'?
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
just looking at tweets and other press releases is known as propaganda; which most of America would like, I'm afraid.
The media, theoretically, is supposed to ask hard questions.
The media is supposed to ask questions and get answers from our politicians so that the next election we can vote accordingly.
For example, "Exactly what does make America great again mean?"
Or, "How can you cut taxes, increase infrastructure spending and expect economic growth to increase tax revenues when Reagan proved it a fairy tale?"
the media this past election cycle was so inept, the we ended up with Trump.
So Twitter is now actively doxing people?
He meant infowars, the site for people who believe facts are a liberal plot to turn their dogs gay.
I don't see it as controversial at all. If you knowingly do someone bodily harm, then that is assault. It's quite something to attach "on a computer" and then declare that somehow you can argue away both intent and harm.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They auto play on my phone, and have for over a year.
Do you see the Washington Post investigating? That is much more meaningful than your comment.
Do you think the moron wrote to the headline it's a flashing animation?
Yes, if you would bother to read anything. This isn't the first time that someone did this to the dude AND the body of the tweet literally said "you deserve a seizure". Don't open these links, turn autoplay off, and if you can't do that then don't use shit services that may harm you if your controversial public posts can piss other people off.
Now if you will excuse me for exercising actual thought here, but NORMAL PEOPLE would think: 1: people have tried to send me things that are bad before > 2: this literally says the person sending it wants me to be hurt > 3: not gonna open this one.
Instead we have some dumb-ass guy going: 1: people have tried to make me have seizures through this service before > 2: this says it hopes I have a seizure > 3: opens the damn thing and has a seizure > 4: I should sue because I'm a fucking idiot that wants everyone else to babysit me.
Was there a seizure? You have two components - intent and result. If I intend to punch you in a face, take a swing, but never manage to hit you, did assault actually happened? IANAL, so I don't know.
I have no sympathy for people using a claim of feeling threatened as an obvious attempt at censorship. Sending an animation specifically crafted to induce seizures to someone you know is an epileptic is not free speech.
Applying your sort of logic:
I am not an epileptic. Therefore you are a lying scumbag.
Or just maybe, different people are different, and can have different reactions. Maybe you as an epileptic might even know that there are different kinds of epilepsy.
It could be assault, yes.
FTFY.
But then, the actual answer would be up to a court to decide, so we agree: this action is appropriate.
Breakfast served all day!
It takes a special kind of asshole to blame the victim on this one. The images were sent with the express intention of doing harm to someone. It's that simple.
Are you the type of idiot who reads about a rape and thinks "if only she wore something less attractive, she wouldn't have been raped"?
As you imply, the internet is basically the wild west, and it surely should be used with caution. But when someone intentionally tries to harm others, it is wrong, and there should be consequences.
The media ran it's credibility into the ground supporting Hillary. That's a one time thing, they can't do it again. No credibility left to burn.
Hillary really was a disaster for the Democrats.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So in other words, a legal search regarding an illegal seizure. Got it.
So, do you have any evidence that a police report was filed at the time of the post? Dallas police department says no.
He was just hurt that he was exposed as a lunatic on Tucker Carlson's show, so now he's lashing out. Go find the clip for a really good laugh.
So in other words, a legal search regarding an illegal seizure. Got it.
Yeah, as another AC pointed out, I got whooshed.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Yes, although not battery.
You need a bad actor that you can identify.
Leave Shatner alone!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Trump has no intention of "cutting the press corps out of the process". His plan is to simply never face questions. He hasn't given a single press conference since July where he takes questions.
https://theweek.com/speedreads...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Depends on the state. South Carolina, for example, defines it as follows:
"Misdemeanor assault and battery involves causing injury or threatening or attempting to cause injury to another. Assault and battery that causes severe injury or that occurs in the course of certain other criminal conduct is a felony. (S.C. Code Ann. Â 16-3-600.)"
So, swinging and missing would be a misdemeanor, swinging and connecting (but not causing severe injury) is still a misdemeanor, swinging and connecting (and causing severe injury) is a felony.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
It caused him to seize!
I have some concerns with taking this at face value. From all I've read, you need a prolonged exposure - more than the few milliseconds it takes to recognize it for what it is and look away. Which is why music venues can still use strobe lights, as long as they limit the time.
For now, I'd say he allegedly seized. Whether he really did so or not might need some medical expertise to weigh in - he certainly had an incentive for making people believe he did, and it's hard to prove a negative.
It will be hard to prove in court that the sender actually suspected a seizure would result.
The attached message 'you deserve a seizure' might be pretty good evidence. Sorry to get in the way of your rant though.
Generally [1], assault as defined as an *attempt* to cause, or actually causing, bodily harm; Or act in a manor to cause another to feel immediate fear of harm.
So, yes... This would be considered assault if you take causing a seizure as falling into the category of bodily harm.
[1] - Varies by state... But most follow that general definition
What if the sender puts a sign on it that says "I hope you go in to anaphylactic shock?"
If so, and the person ate it anyhow, I'd say that the sender would have a plausible defense. "Your honour, I knew he had a peanut allergy. I did not know he was also a complete and utter idiot."
Think of it as being like "attempted murder." Being a bad shot and missing doesn't absolve you of wrong doing.
Interesting. Law is rather complicated.
Another question - what happens if attempt is not credible or has no chance to succeed? For example, I take a swing from 10 feet away without any way of landing it?
You (and the summary) leave out some significant info.
First - They've done this to him multiple times since September, knowing he has siesures Second - They've threatened to murder him, even left things on his doorstep Third - They broke into his Daughters school, leaving messages addressed to him threatening his daughter.
Details are important, and this is far past the line for being able to prosecute criminally for harassment and threatening harm.
And yet it was one more tweet that was the final straw for him to take legal action?
Let's forget whatever he did to piss off the perpetrators for a moment. As a parent, I'm not quite sure what the fuck he was waiting for.
What evidence of a seizure would there be? Even if he went to A&E, would the hospital give out that kind of information about people? Most people who have minor seizures don't go to hospital anyway.
Sounds like more "4chan investigates" bullshit to me, about as thorough as Pizzagate no doubt.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Or maybe Twitter's lawyers and PR people realized that it would really bad press and/or bad for the stock price for the company to fight this.
It's not some left/right dichotomy here.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Nope the LCD's framerate is plenty fast enough.
That said, I'm surprised this guy survived using the web for this long. I always thought epileptics used modified browsers to avoid being killed by these gifs, particularly obnoxious advertisements, and intentionally obnoxious websites.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Your posting exhibits a fascinating level of stupidity, even for an AC. The receiver in this case does not see the nature of the thing before he looks at it. That already is enough to cause damage. This is far more like a letter-bomb.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Is there attempted jaywalking? I think attempted murder exists because of a gravity of the crime. I am not sure there is such thing as attempted assault, and if it does, how it is defined.
Again, this goes back to my original point that defining sending gifs to someone as an assault is controversial. I think you have to have a trial to set precedent on this before we can call it assault.
I don't see it as controversial at all. If you knowingly do someone bodily harm, then that is assault.
IANAL, but if I understand the distinction correctly (in those jurisdictions where it exists in law):
* If you knowingly do someone bodily harm, then that is BATTERY
* If you knowingly do to someone something that would make him reasonably believe you have put him at risk of bodily harm, then that is ASSAULT.
Swing at his nose and miss by a half inch, it's assault. (So is making threats, such as by moving into his personal space and waving your fist, or just yelling into his face from an inch away.) Swing and connect, and it's battery. If he sees it coming it's assault and battery. Use a tool that can inflict damage at a level risking life and limb, and it adds "with a deadly weapon" to the assault and/or battery.
It's quite something to attach "on a computer" and then declare that somehow you can argue away both intent and harm.
I agree.
Since it's the intentional causing of bodily harm in one case, and the intentional creation of a reasonable fear of bodily harm in the other, but bodily harm is not limited to any particular subset of harm that would exclude inducing (or attempting to induce) a seizure, a charge of assault would be appropriate even if the attempt to produce a seizure did not succeed, but did cause the recipient to be reasonably afraid it might.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
That's sad for America. In Australia a cop got charged the other day for pulling a gun on someone during a traffic stop. It was deemed unreasonable and he was stood down.
What happened that made your police psychopaths which are untouchable.
However, the bigger question comes, will this lead to the path of having any animation that can induce seizures anywhere online become legally liable?
No. These guys specifically threatens to give him a seizure, and tried to do so on multiple occasions as part of a longer campaign of harassment. I imagine it was the nature of those threats that convinced the court to order the information released to him.
Anyway, if you accidentally created an animation that could cause seizures you would probably want to be contacted about it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The media did none of those things w/ Obama, or even w/ Bill Clinton. So if they are bypassed by this administration, they won't be missed - except by the SJWs who need their safe spaces from where to hate Trump
The media ran it's credibility into the ground supporting Hillary
The media had no credibility to run into the ground prior to the election, so you are wrong.
A giant chunk of people want to think they are one of the Lone Gunmen these days, so instead of taking the MSM as an input and balancing it against other sources, they go out and find the fringiest material they possibly can so they can live in a fantasy world where Al Gore eats puppies, and only they and their super-select twitter roll know the secret.
These people already despised the MSM so the election changed nothing for them.
Those who know how to filter the MSM for bias and use the valuable information they provide constructively live in the real world. Where the only things this election taught us about the media is that statewide polling and a lot of analytics firms suck ass at their job and TV news shows obviously don't have a budget to actually pay researchers to develop interesting issue coverage, so they'll dwell on whatever is funny and amusing instead.
Someone had to do it.
No, he can continue to hold his rallies, and get wall to wall coverage
The media has zero credibility. They asked no hard questions of the last administration. The public can look at the statements the second they are made. Questions can still be asked and anyone who wants can investigate the truth of the statements and comment.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
"Assault with a deadly weapon" seems to best cover it. The malicious intent is obvious, so not an accident or a "joke".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You (and the summary) leave out some significant info.
First - They've done this to him multiple times since September, knowing he has siesures Second - They've threatened to murder him, even left things on his doorstep Third - They broke into his Daughters school, leaving messages addressed to him threatening his daughter.
Details are important, and this is far past the line for being able to prosecute criminally for harassment and threatening harm.
Gonna need some sauce on these.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Hillary did not do one the entire time she ran.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Yes, it was a flashing GIF that said, 'you deserve a seizure'. This was a deliberate attack.
What if the flashing GIF said "Have a nice day!", and the victim had a seizure after seeing it? Would that still be a deliberate attack?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
You forgot the most important part: he attempted to manipulate a democratically held election. He deserves to be shot as a traitor at the very least.
so does that mean we all deserve to be shot for all the vote rigging, government overthrowing, and despot dictator supporting the US has engaged in during the past century in the name of anticommunism? if the government is by the people, the buck stops with us. We have overthrown democratically elected governments before.
You don't have to do any of that shit if your subject goes out of his way to tap the checkbox labeled "Auto-eat all sandwiches"
If somebody makes a credible attempt to cause serious harm to somebody else, limitations to any expectation of privacy apply.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Depends on a lot of factors, really.
I mean the victim (I have to use some term for the person 10 feet away that's being swung at) could decline to press charges, or the prosecution could say that there's not a case to be had, and thus no point in taking it to court.
The police could say it's not worth arresting the person doing the swinging (although if you are publicly drunk and it's not St. Patrick's Day/Cinco De Mayo/New Year's Eve, then they will arrest you).
There's no clear-cut answer.
Now, all that assumes it's just a bare-knuckle punch-up. If weapons get involved, it gets much more serious and the police are much less likely to shrug it away that the aggressor was not within striking range.
I should note: I am not a lawyer. A lot of what I said is from either rooming with a law student or talking with cops.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
"prosecution for criminal acts" - is sending an animation a criminal act?
If it is done with the intent and a reasonable expectation to cause serious harm, it is.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Also the other countless death threats from the same individual
To file a police report there needs to be proof. You don't get to cry wolf and have the courts take your word for it.
Blaming the victim of the crime for the crime being committed? What's next? "Yes, I slipped a date rape drug in her drink, your honor, but what happened next was her fault because she drank the drink."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If the perpetrator did it knowing it could cause the recipient harm then yes.
In no realm of reality is a .gif on the internet like a letter bomb.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
I would also be fine with whenever something like this is known to the person posting it online, that they will have to add a warning. Like a food-manufacturer is required to give allergy-warnings for the more common allergy-triggers, like the epilepsy-warnings that come with a lot of games.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Speech used to drive somebody to suicide intentionally and hate-speech are prosecutable. This is similar, but worse.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You have no clue how a test of actual scientific value works. You are a complete moron. Now, if you repeat that test with a few 1000 people with different types and intensity of epilepsy and nobody has any ill effects, then there may be some validity to the hypothesis that he is lying.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Blaming the victim of the crime for the crime being committed? What's next? "Yes, I slipped a date rape drug in her drink, your honor, but what happened next was her fault because she drank the drink."
Sometimes victims are to blame. If I handed a lady a note saying "I put a date rape drug in your drink, and if you drink it, I or someone will have our way with you", and they still chose to drink it, I would say that guilt falls on them too.
The display does not flicker, but what is displayed on it sure can.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
My head says... that's a violation of privacy expectations.
The question i grapple with is was a crime committed? generally a tweet can at best be really insulting. This seems like a deliberate physical attack intended to inflict harm. in the case of insulting someone from the safety of anonymity, that's not grounds for unmasking someone. if it's actually a physical attack, people commit all kinds of crimes with ski masks on. society up to this point has felt ok with violating their privacy expectations.
I never claimed that he did have a seizure, I pointed out that your argument was not a reasonable one, i.e. your lack of seizure is not proof that he did not have one.
Maybe you calling him a liar was not intended to be read as a conclusion of the the previous statement - but that's how I read it. And maybe you read my comment as me implying that he did in fact have a seizure, when I never said that. I merely said that by your logic, since I'm not epileptic I can say that you must be lying when you say you are.
Whether or not he is a "lying <your choice of offensive term here>" is irrelevant to the point I made. If you have some reference that would explain to me how all epileptic people respond exactly the same to every stimulus I'd be happy to read it.
They already had no credibility with you and me. But they had some with some people...not any more. At this point even the people that 'believe' know they are lying to themselves at some deep level. You see it in the talking heads, who can't even keep their faces symmetrical while lying anymore.
Knowing what the various factions want you to believe is important. Talking points are usually tells.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The rubber word in there is "reasonably" but I think most people would agree this is a reasonable disclosure of user information.
That entirely depends on the gif and who it is sent to and with what intent. Understanding this does require some actual understanding of the facts involved though, and you obviously have none.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
1) No, your analogy is ridiculous. It shows that, despite your desire to buff up the scholarly chops of your post with a link to a dictionary definition, you do not understand the legal concept of assault.
2) Not every goddamn thing is about "The Left" (or I suppose, by corollary, the heroic "Right"). By choosing to couch your entire worldview** in these terms, you do yourself a great disservice. When the only tool you have is a shoehorn, everything looks like a left or right shoe (to paraphrase Maslow).
But often times, as is the case here, you'll find yourself trying to jam a 1L Torts textbook into some weird partisan ideological clog, and it comes off as ham-fisted and inapt. What's next? Can we work "SJWs" in here somehow? Is it too much of a stretch to blame this one on Islam?
**If your worldview is somehow more nuanced, it hasn't come across in your prodigious post history.
Nothing posted to
She gave one on September 8, 2016. Though I'm not sure if we should believe this fake news site. It's up to you.
http://hotair.com/archives/201...
You are welcome on my lawn.
addendum to the anarchists cookbook: when sending a seizure inducing gif, always caption it with innocuous text like, "have a nice day" or "lol kittens!". This ensures plausible deniability that it was a deliberate attack.
I think the key point is the intent. If it can be proven in a court of law that they sent this animation to the journalist with the intent to trigger an epileptic seizure, then a case for assault can be made. If you sent someone a random flashing GIF and it caused a seizure, you likely wouldn't get tried for assault or, if you did, the case would get thrown out due to lack of intent. However, if you had been harassing this person for weeks saying "I hope you have a seizure" and then started sending all kinds of flashing animations at them, your outlook in court gets grimmer.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
What happened that made your police psychopaths which are untouchable.
The War on Drugs, thats what.
The point of filing a police report is so that the police can go and find proof. It's not your job to do their job for them.
In this case it wouldn't matter if he had a seizure or not, all they would care about is if someone deliberately tweeted that image at him, and there is ample evidence that happened.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You can disable that. I don't know anyone who wants it, epileptic or not. https://www.google.com/search?...
-]Phreak Out[-
I'm tempted to just reply: I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a slashdot user with user id "sinij"...
Click on the link I included, read what it says. If you don't like that, try searching for "attempted assault" and see what comes up. (If you actually exist. I'm not sure if you do exist~)
If I was subject to epileptic seizures by animated GIFs, I'd certainly turn off GIF animations. (I have them turned off in my browser because I find them annoying.) Why didn't this guy do that? Seriously, there are so many animated GIFs these days that surely quite a few would have just the right frequency to trigger seizures in a susceptible person.
If you are allergic to peanuts, you don't take peanut factory tours. If GIF animations cause you to have seizures, you turn them off. If you don't know how to do it, just google "how to turn off animated gifs to prevent seizures". Is this really not common knowledge in the epileptic community?
Who cares?
If somebody shoots at you, but misses, they still tried to kill you. Nobody would say 'oh, his feelings are just hurt that somebody was that mad at him.'
The accused formed a specific intent to harm, gathered the materials to carry out that intent, planned his assault, and carried it out. Guilty act plus guilty mind.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
They did no such thing. In editorials they may have supported Hillary, but their excessive attention on some emails that were much ado about nothing, and their utter failure to cover anything even remotely policy related (do you remember reading stories about the candidates' positions on climate change? No? Me either) were effectively an abdication of their responsibility to report responsibly on anything.
Trump played them--he was good ratings, and they need those now. Now they can bleat about how awful a president he is, giving them guaranteed revenue for the next 4 years as they play the conscientious objectors.
Intent is the point here. The attackers intent to cause harm is blindingly obvious, the video used serves no other purpose other than to cause a seizure in susceptible people. If they'd sent gore pics with the intent to make someone sick to their stomach and maybe lose their lunch, then that would be just a juvenile trick, but inducing a seizure in someone with epilepsy can be life-threatening. Add to this the other aggressive and violent acts that have been perpetrated against this guy and his family, and you have a pattern of behavior that clearly indicates the intent to cause bodily harm and/or death. Do you wait for someone to show up with a gun in their hand ready to kill before you act to stop them, or do you see the handwriting on the wall and stop them as soon as possible?
Too bad there's evidence that he filed the civil suit, with a court, case number, and filing date stamped right on it.
Puts the whole "this doesn't exist" theory to shame...
since when is not having common sense and being an idiot a crime??? Dont go getting my hopes up now
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
True, but what happens when/if the paper chase ends up at some offshore VPN or open proxy that doesn't keep logs? Pretty sure that if someone is going to go to the trouble of crafting/sending this tweet, they're going to have enough working neurons to cover that much of their tracks.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Possibly yes, possibly no. If the attacker doesn't sign his intent to the image, you'll have to prove that separately. But declaring his intent right on the message with the image pretty much obviates the need to prove intent.
explain the banning of milo, prominent trump supporter, and also gay (because that somehow matters to some)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
A warning of "don't look" requires you to look in order to read the warning...
civil suit != police report
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So if someone with peanut allergies receives a candy bar with peanuts, they open it and take a bite. The sender is liable for damages?
If the sender knows they have an allergy to peanuts and marks the package deceptively to trick the target into eating it, then yes that's assault or attempted murder. (Heck, there's even an iZombie episode about this exact means of assassination.)
>is sending an animation a criminal act?
It depends on the circumstances. If I offer you half an ounce of lead, it's not a criminal act. If I send it to you at 700MPH, the courts always seem to think that I meant you harm. It's just a bit of metal, so there should really be no restriction on how I offer it to you or how I obtained it - right?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
How come someone named "DRJlaw" doesnt know that evidence of a filing a civil suit is not also evidence of a police report being filed?
For fuck sakes... why is your argument so downright blatantly dishonest?
"His name was James Damore."
If you commit a crime under partial anonymity...
"His name was James Damore."
Did the sender know that the recipient had a condition that would be triggered by the email?
They are turning it over to the court under order as part of the discovery process. The court is directing that the information go to the plaintiff.
When committing a tort, the tortfeasor gets responsibility for all consequences, intended or not. Considering the text accompanying the image was "you deserve a seizure", it's pretty clear what the intent was. It certainly shows that the sender was very much aware that a seizure was possible.
The claim made by me was that Eichenwald's twitter account claimed to have filed a police report right after the incident. So far you have not provided any evidence that refutes that claim. When someone calls the police to report a crime, the police immediately generate a report and start an investigation. His wife absolutely did make that claim. For some weird reason you just wont admit it.
I wasnt being all that serious. I'm not stating there is bias but just repeating that there is claimed bias.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
Assumes facts not in evidence. The dispatcher could just as easily ask for them to file a written complaint with an officer. As I've had happen to me before.
Quite simply, prove it.
After all, it is causing actual real harm.
But also there should be some sort of seizure protection extension for the browsers.
one of their members who threatened to kill all jews and muslims
Depressingly, this may actually be a case of specific persecution: Twitter seems to be just fine with 20,000+ people calling for the death of all men (see #killallmen).
If Trump's "grabbing pussy" without first obtaining a written permission from the owner was an assault, then so is making somebody "feel unsafe". The relevant dictionary definition is:
FindLaw.com may disagree with it, but who is going to ask them? Certainly not the people, for who the very election of Donald Trump is an Act of Terrorism.
Sure. Not every thing. But this one is...
Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
However, the bigger question comes, will this lead to the path of having any animation that can induce seizures anywhere online become legally liable?
It might lead to having to put them behind a click-through warning page. That is not horribly difficult to accomplish and will not cost much so it seems like not a horrible place at which to arrive.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The information about the aggressor should go to the police, not the victim. I'm all for that. I have a problem with it going to the victim.
The information goes to to the prosecutor in a criminal case, it makes sense that it would go to the plaintiff in a civil case. A judge is expected to take into account whether the information is necessary and who will receive it before granting a warrant.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The US seems to have selected police based upon just how psychotic they are. That Australian cop would fit right in, what would happen in the US to him is there would be some media attention and he would be stood down (or he'd resign). Then he would either get a new job as a cop in the next town down the highway (since the police are far more local in the US than in Australia) or the union would challenge it and he would be reinstated with full back pay 6 months later after the media attention had gone away.
They're untouchable because they get to use the great "we have investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong". Prosecutors work with the police as an essential part of their job, so something has to be seriously terrible for them to try and prosecute anything. For reasons that remain a mystery to me most people seem to take the word of a police officer over a random person as well, so they win the he said/she said cases from either side. Law enforcement has also done a great job of marketing probably the safest time to be a cop in US history as a "war on police" environment in which they are terrified for their safety at all times and thus it's ok that they shoot first.
At least in the US they are supposed to have probable cause before harassing you. Of course that doesn't stop them since there is never any punishment when they violate those rules - at worse the person sues and gets a payout from the city but that doesn't affect the cop in any way. But at least something like MDT isn't a thing...I shudder to think how bad things would be without at least that fast eroding protection.
Some people wouldn't know humor if it jumped up and bit them in the ass. Sorry I don't have any mod points to offset your "Troll" rating...
If he sees it coming it's assault and battery.
Does he actually have to see it coming, or would he only have to have considered it a threat if he had seen it? I don't think that you have to have awareness for assault. I think it's the attempt to do harm that makes it assault.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
She gave one on September 8, 2016. Though I'm not sure if we should believe this fake news site. It's up to you.
While you're correct, one is not very many either. It is, in fact, downright few. So yeah, he's totally wrong. But I suggest that one can be compared to none fairly easily and reasonably. One one hand, it is infinitely more. On the other hand, it is barely more.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
intentionally obnoxious websites
112 pounds a month for a fiat panda? Punch me in the balls, that's fucked.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That makes sense but effort and time consuming for everyone to uo verify and update content appropriately.
You'll just end up with another screen like any EULA that states how they are not responsible for etc etc which may or may not be on this site.
Every site will have it just to cover themselves, and only a few sites won't have warnings about seizures etc so ideally you'd know those are safe..but yeah overall I don't think it would play out the way people would want it to if they asked for seizure warning click-throughs.
There are videos that have seizure potentially causing images and what not and a lot of the time they do warn you.
hate-speech are prosecutable
What country are you from?
May you develop a disease that can be fatal which is also widely misunderstood.
Or, hmm. It appears you're the only person here who can't figure out why sending an image like this to somebody who suffers from photosensitive seizures does not constitute speech. Let me try my curse again.
May you develop a disease that can be fatal which is understood by most lay people, however may you also fall under the care of somebody who has some obtuse objection to properly caring for that disease.
There. I hope you're quaking in your boots now!!!!.... if that doesn't work, I'll follow up with a strongly-worded letter!
Probably the same reason that idiots don't know that "I have your information and have called the police to report the assault" means that someone has called the police, not that they have filed a police report.
If you want to prove that the call to report didn't happen, you'd look at call logs for the day, not for a written complaint or "police report."
"called the police" != police report as well.
I'm in no way contesting these specific individuals, but if you pay attention to how law works, every time something occurs, it will be referred to in future rulings to convince the judge to rule in favor of a party.
Hypothetically it could be then "Well, this site has content that can cause seizures and it showed up on my news feed or on an advertisement, and in case X where someone submitted content to another user that can cause seizures their information was revealed etc etc."
The problem doesn't become the spirit of the ruling, it becomes the letters of the law. More simplified. Original issue..
"Party A maliciously sent multiple damaging images to party B" Case successful. ....
"Party A maliciously sent one damaging image to party B" Well, see the ruling in case one, the judge decided in favor. Judge influenced, case successful.
"Party A sent multiple damaging images to party B, and should have been aware it could cause harm" Well, see the ruling for case one and two where this content was sent to people and caused seizures. Judge agrees, case successful.
"Party A sent
Until you get down to "Party A publicly submitted content that they knew would be viewed by many viewers, some who may have conditions to cause seizures and should have been aware of it and is responsible since it's a public medium" If the next case was the final case, and the only had case 1 to reference, it'd like be called bullshit. But as each case morphs slightly, it makes the legal gap smaller and smaller until you can nail someone for a flashing ad.
Mind you I hate flashing ads, and it's not even medically threatening to me, but you get the point. It can eventually be converted out of the original pretext and used and abused.
That's what I meant.
But one is going to be president and the other is going to be retired.
I think that in the present, we should expect the incoming president to be able to field questions from the press. Personally, I can't wait until the first State of the Union address.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's not some left/right dichotomy here.
What reality are you living in these days?
I have epilepsy.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't even get the opportunity to look away. By the time I've recognized that the image is harmful, it's too late.
Seizures suck. They usually cost me a couple of days of work, cut up my lips and tongue (from biting) and damage muscles in my arms and legs. The person who sent that image needs to be prosecuted - they had a real intent to cause harm.
agreed. so.. now that we agree here.... there is no proof that he did call the cops let alone file a police report. we only have a civil suit which anyone can bring on anyone
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It's always amazes me that people can have such an utter ignorance of the basic principles governing the society they live in. What matters is your understanding of the consequences of your action when you choose to perform that action. The very same act with the very same consequences can perfectly innocent or a capital offense, depending on what you know.
For example Alice offers Bob a candybar. Bob checks the ingredients and believing the candy bar to be safe eats it. He dies: the ingredients fail to include the nut oil used. Fascinated, Alice finds out that Carlos also has a deadly peanut allergy, and offers him an identical candy bar. Carlos also dies.
Both these events are identical in every single respect right down to the consequence. You could observe each of these events right from the moment Alice purchased the candybar right to through to the fatal consequences, and you would not see a single difference in detail. Yet one is an unfortunate mishap, the other is a murder. The only difference is what Alice knows.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But you don't have an expectation of privacy when a third party is concerned. This is why there has to be statutory limitations on the ability of law enforcement to compel the disclosure of phone company records.
The mistaken notion that you have an expectation of privacy using social media is especially pernicious. Hasn't it even occurred to you to wonder why Facebook and Twitter don't charge you to use their services? Because the user isn't the customer; he's the product.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The only time this ever happens is if a leftist is ever affected. If it harms a non-leftist, they'll defend it.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
So can we file a class action lawsuit against the /. editors for causing emotional distress?
For all the incoherent non sequiturs, you actually implied something very astute. Some of Trump's "pussy grabbing" may indeed not have been assault, strictly speaking. It appears sometimes he advanced his tongue and grabbin' hand so abruptly that there was no time for his victim to be "in apprehension" of the unwanted contact — he skipped straight past assault to sexual battery.
Nothing posted to
I don't get why people try to defend things by saying "what about what so and so did?" Who gives a fuck? That's not a defense for this kind of crap. I don't care about politics in this situation because no matter what someone's political views he's still entitled to protection under the law. Just because someone else got fucked over is no defense. There's no way on earth to justify threatening the guys daughter. This is tantamount to the stupid bastards that try to justify jihad because someone offended muslims by making obscene pictures of allah. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
If you have epilepsy, you should really turn that off.
I use twitter in my browser and it doesn't autoplay anything. :) If Kurt wasn't such a man-child, he'd have done the same thing.... but his meltdown after his meltdown on Tucker Carlson's show means he is lashing out to people who saw his meltdown.
I have no fucking sympathy for assholes.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
A week ban for threatening to kill people? That's it? Not a lifetime ban? Jeez!
That's odd anyway because most of the people hating on muslims seem to like the Jews.
I imagine his lawyer will use that defense. I would. Of course I think if they can prove he did it they should let him spend a few months in a cage with some other animals. I'm a little tired of the sick people on both sides of the Trump issue. Some of it was funny for a while but about 3 or 4 percent of those people are deranged for real.
It takes a special kind of asshole to think that it's blaming the victim here. He has epilepsy. He knows he has epilepsy. Thanks to the Internet, everyone including your grandma knows he has epilepsy. If he was PRUDENT, he would have disabled ANIMATION AUTOPLAY. It's disabled by default on my browser and I don't have epilepsy. If he clicked "play" and got a seizure, well... the "victim" deserves to be blamed.
That being said, I doubt it was the same level of intentional harm that has happened in the past. Because Kurt has been trolling Twitter for quite a while, poking people to get a response. Very nice and journalistic of him, to be sure. Note that this asinine behavior from a douche like Kurt doesn't excuse the specific attempts to harm him, this one seems simply a case of him being already unhinged after his appearance on the talk show and his 40-tweet rant about the CIA and Trump. Seeing the tweet with the words "you deserve a seizure" made him go finally full retard and threaten everyone with jail and fines and beatings because he was feeling butthurt.
I read the whole thread in real time, so spare me the bullshit, AC. I know he's milking this for sympathy after his rant and implosion on Tucker Carlson's show.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
He didn't stop tweeting. 'His wife' tweeted once, and a few minutes later, he started back on his rant, but added about the "assault" he endured a few minutes ago.
Sorry, I was reading the feed when this happened. And by gum, the gif didn't play automatically for me. ;) The timing's suspicious for most people who witnessed the previous and post-seizure tweetstorms.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Ah, your use of SAT-words makes me feel so inferior, I'm going to cry now... Your chops are so intimidating.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I understand that, but what I find interested is this situation. Asshats sent flashing gifts to other asshats. Nobody got any sizure and everyone has demonstrable intent to be an asshat. Who gets charged with an assault and why? Keep in mind, being asshat is not a crime.
Certainly not the people, for who the very election of Donald Trump is an Act of Terrorism.
I hate to be a grammar nazi, but you used the phrase "the people" to link to a statement made by a single person. "the person" would be more correct usage in this instance.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
oh yes, and it should be "for whom".
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
You don't "open" Tweets. This isn't email. There's no "subject". The body of the message, which would have been viewed at the same time the video started playing, contained those words.
Is it too much to ask people not to comment on communication systems they've evidently never seen before?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
He violated the ToS several times. He finally posted faked tweets in an attempt to harass another person on Twitter, and Twitter dropped the banhammer.
This is all public domain. Why do you need it explained to you? Most conservatives don't do this, which is why most conservatives still have Twitter accounts, including Trump himself.
(That said, right now, I'd close Trump's accounts but on national security grounds, not because of the ToS or because of his politics.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There isn't really a valid reason to be sending seizure inducing animations to anyone - the frame rate is too slow for real animations, and too fast to see each frame individually. Those of us not prone to seizures would just see it as an annoying flicker that induces a headache if you try to stare at it to decipher the contents. So sending it out "unaware" that it might trigger a seizure isn't a whole lot different than sending it out specifically to cause a seizure. The sender is being a prize asshole either way.
It's possible that police are acting on a criminal complaint already, but are not interested in chasing the Twitter harassment even though it might have more likelihood of revealing the identity of the abuser, so in frustration he has filed a civil suit on the Twitter harassment separately.
I was an epileptic, Eichenwald is almost certainly a lying scumbag. I was a sufferer of photosensitive epilepsy when I was a kid, and flashing images almost never triggered a seizure. In fact, they would just happen without any clear pattern of outside stimuli. It would just occur, and then I'd have a skull-splitting headache when it was over. Medication is highly effective in controlling this.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
It is if the recipient has epilepsy of a type where he or she can actually die from a seizure induced by the malicious GIF.
Funnily enough though, quite a lot of people seem to consider an internet where you cannot be arbitrarily nasty to people without consequence as a pretty horribly place.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No that argument is facile.
We live in a world of shades of grey. You can always move from an evil act to a good one piecemeal by changing one thing at a time. Everything exists on a continuum. However, just because it's impossible to draw a line in one place definitively separating an acceptable act from an unacceptable one, does not mean it's impossible to tell when one particular act is very far from any reasonable line.
Sending a seizure inducing image to a person signed as such and after a campaign of attempting the same is very very clear.
You can keep changing one thing at at time and asking what if, but that doesn't affect this particular case. In those cases ultimately, that's why we have judges and juries because subtle cases require human discretion.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So you dont have any evidence at all that a police report was filed...
...but you defended the claim that one was, with dishonest misdirection... a fabrication...
Whats your motive for being intentionally dishonest on slashdot?
If I look at your post history, will I find a lot of this behavior, or is it only now in this specific case that you had a motive to be dishonest?
"His name was James Damore."
If I intend to punch you in a face, take a swing, but never manage to hit you, did assault actually happened?
If you live in the UK, here's your answer:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_...
TL;DR: yes.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If "seizure-inducing" speech is prosecutable now
Seizure inducing "speech" is just as prosecutable as punching-in-the-face speech.
Neither are speech, both are assault. This is not complicated.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
He's not wrong. At least not completely.
The MSM's credibility was completely annihilated this year - but it wasn't just about Hillary (though their coverage was a big part of it).
Social media has done an amazing job of proving the MSM as liars. Examples include the Black Lives Matter riots... where CNN edited footage showing one of the shot men's sisters calling for the mob to stop burning down their own neighbourhood and go burn down the white ones because ("we need our weaves" - they'd burnt down her wig shop!).
CNN edited it to show her saying "stop rioting" and said she was calling for peace. It was blatant lies from CNN.
Social media put out the full video and CNN was exposed. There are many other incidents like it that would not have happened without social media. You can, today, go and see for yourself just how much the MSM lies and manipulates to sell their chosen narrative - and they have zero credibility now.
The obvious question is what replaces it? Social media can't as it's a sewer with the occasional diamond.
What reality are you living in these days?
Indeed, bringing someone to account for actual assault is apparently a left /right issue. The weird thing is, the usually "tough on crime" right wingers here seem to have gone all soft on crime all of a sudden.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Actually, it absolutely is. Particularly if you are a visually-triggered epileptic.
Sometimes those bombs weren't meant to hurt you, and were left a million years ago by some dimwitted kid who thought it was funny, and no one is really culpable today, and sometimes those bombs are left at your doorstep with the express intent to cause you harm.
The intent to do harm is what distinguishes between a bad joke and an assault here.
In what realm of reality is an intentional attempt at harming someone (no matter *how* ridiculous) not an attack?
Fuck, in some states, i'm fairly certain that if you were to aim an animated picture frame capable of causing a seizure at someone with epilepsy, they're legally entitled to execute you.
I get that it's the internet, and the guy is an idiot. I really do. But the intent matters, period. If you disagree with that, it's because you're just not very bright. There are plenty of ways to cause YOU harm on the internet that many other people may find you pathetic for succumbing to. I assume you'd like us to prosecute those.
If Trump's "grabbing pussy" without first obtaining a written permission
I like how you've smoothly changed requiring consent into needing written permission as an attempt to discredit it. Written permission is not...
actually you know what? If you have such deep trouble understanding the concept of intent, then I think perhaps you ought to not touch any women without written permission. It's better for everyone that way.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
With a severe peanut allergy, you don't even need to eat it to get a reaction.
So much like your inane hypothetical example wouldn't need to actually eat the contents of the poisoned package, now would the person in this story have to spend ages staring at the screen.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yes but for some reason a lot of people seem to believe that the magical pixies of the internet make people immune from intent, harm and criminal acts and culpability.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The media ran it's credibility into the ground supporting Hillary.
Perhaps with you, but with a very clear plurality of the country... not so much. .68 votes of the average former slave-holding state citizen.
The winner of this election won because the 3/5ths Compromise is still working today to make sure the vote of a coastal citizen is worth
You know that... right?
That's odd anyway because most of the people hating on muslims seem to like the Jews.
No.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The burden of proof for a mere subpoena is much lower than for an actual prosecution, you ought to know that. It is known that there has been a campaign of harassment and someone made another attempt. That is easily enough evidence to start the process of filing a lawsuit.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Keep in mind, being asshat is not a crime.
You are correct. But trying to hurt someone, outside of areas where you are legally entitled to (self defense, consenting) is a crime. Period.
This is really a case of 2 asshats being asshats to each other, and one of them crossing the line.
Kind of like how throwing a pipe in your buddy's bike wheel may be funny if he just eats shit, but you're likely a convicted juvenile criminal if he flies in front of a car and is turned into roadkill.
If you have epilepsy, you should really turn that off.
Yeah, I mean I'm swinging my fists at you. The onus is really on you to get out of the way and protect yourself.
In the real world with actual courts and judges and everything, if you attempt to assault someone, the excuse "they should have defended themselves so its their fault for not doing so" doesn't cut it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
And if you're sensitive to penetration by high velocity spinning cones of lead, don't leave your house without wearing Kevlar. Duh.
You're not wrong, of course. But you are victim-blaming.
What the fuck will you guys call speech, next? The way you pull a trigger?
SJWs who need their safe spaces
You mean like Pence and Trump?
https://mobile.twitter.com/rea...
There's Trump calling for a safe space for Pence. Doesn't that make them SJWs now? I lose track of what it's supposed to mean now because it gets used so much. I think it means "someone I don't like and by the way I'm a fuckwit".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
And so are you with regard to your claimed authority on the topic, or possibly your having the condition at all.
My grandmother was a visually-trigger epileptic. Apparently a bad one (though, the only one I know.)
Growing up with them, I witnessed 3 seizures induced simply from watching television before my grandfather removed the TV. This guy may in fact be lying, but your claim that you as an epileptic means there aren't epileptics worse than you makes you an imbecile, or dishonest. You choose which.
Makes sense. This post and the one providing the larger context. All the other posts are typical "new slashdot" of personal insults and diminutives. Metamoderation is dead. Thanks
unfinished: (adj.)
Growing up with an epileptic who was triggered by flashing lights (my grandmother), flashing images almost *always* triggered this.
In fact, we removed our television after the third seizure that was triggered from it.
I was in the car with her when she learned she had epilepsy - ambulance. She lost her license after that.
Medication did seem effective at controlling those, after a time.
Later in her life, she started going what seemed to be almost a full year between seizures. Though she was never really able to leave the house, and didn't watch television... so who knows.
Again, he may be a lying scumbag, but only an idiot thinks they know what the gold-standard for epilepsy is. It's a fucking spectrum disorder caused by any one or more of a dozen different barely understood problems with your brain circuitry. We categorize them together in ways that they are similar, but they may not even be caused by the same damn pathological problem.
It takes a special kind of asshole to think that it's blaming the victim here.
No, it takes a special kind of asshole to blame the victim here.
If someone swings his fists at you, the onus is not on you to get out of the way. End of. You can try if you like, and you may succeed. But if you fail it's still not your fault, it 's the fault of the person swinging his fists.
blah blah blah
Ah so not only are you blaming the victim, you have lots of reasons why you secretly think it's OK and are pleased with what happened.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Is it? How do we know the person who sent the flashing tweet knew he has epilepsy? Are we sure about that even now? The guy is a little off his nut.
If Trump's "grabbing pussy" without first obtaining a written permission from the owner was an assault
If you are the kind of victim-mentality fuckwit who thinks you need written permission for that kind of thing, you are not qualified to hold an opinion on this subject.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Maybe, but we won't know for sure until it comes up.
I don't get why people try to defend things by saying "what about what so and so did?"
Because that is the level of sophistication people who defend this stuff have. Their only defence is "this is war, so it's justified". They also think it helps to accuse people they don't like of doing all the things that they themselves are doing. Standard wartime propaganda.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Jack Dorsey is an anti-Trump SJW, so the sense of persecution isn't entirely false. When you have people like Anita Sarkeesian on your Orwellian "Trust and Safety Committee" you've taken a wrong turn on free speech. Maybe you missed the petty use of the verification feature and the bans, on the flimsiest pretenses, of prominent Trump supporters. Then there was Dorsey personally scrapping the Trump campaign's emoticon after it was already approved.
The persecution is there, even if it's only petty shit.
Well, if you have epilepsy and you know that even a simple video of strobing lights can induce it, than yes you should make sure autoplay is off. As there are many video's who have strobing effects and might be dangerous to you..
You should protect yourself, it's not the responsibility of someone else..
So if there is an option to block autoplay, then IMHO he himself is to blame, not the person who send him the video/animated gif..
Yup, a friend of mine in uni asked me to leave his office when I walked in eating a snickers, I would have been about 3 metres from him and he could feel himself reacting. The first thing he said to me when I walked in was "does that have peanuts in it"
Up until that point I had no idea you could be that sensitive to peanuts.
I do know a lot about it, and I can tell you that while it's possible it's incredibly rare. I had to live with that shit through repeated blood tests to get medication right and multiple cat scans. This is first hand, not "i know a guy who knows a guy" so sit down and shut the fuck up. You haven't the faintest idea.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Well, if you ...
If you nothing. You're completely ignoring my point. If you attempt to assault someone, and they fail to get out of the way, YOU are guilty, no matter how easily they could have got out of the way, and rightly so.
Don't believe me? Try it and see if the judge agrees with me or you. When you find out the result, let me know the terms of the sentencing.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I know he's milking this for sympathy after his rant and implosion on Tucker Carlson's show.
I am in no way familiar with the wider context of this, but you should have pointed out this extreme bias at the start rather than at the end.
You "know" someone's internal motivations, therefore what you say about them is too biased to take seriously.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Why would the police be involved in a civil suit?
Similar in the UK. A video was release of two armed officers who were dealing with a report of some teens with a handgun. Their getting if the situation was pretty damn good.
https://youtu.be/ehzq9OdE2w0
It's bizarre. Police in the states seem to be trained in conflict escalation - immediately point your firearm at the suspect - but I suppose that's a side effect of having an armed population.
Take for instance the British army, they are trained to always have their weapons pointed at the ground as deescalation is the priority when dealing with civilians.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker...
The Republican media and political leadership made a conscious choice decades ago to demonize Democrats. It has worked. They've convinced about 35% of the people that millions of their fellow Americans are not just misguided, but are evil and trying to undermine the country.
Democrats support gun control, not to reduce gun violence, but to make it easier to send you to the gas chamber.
Democrats support civil rights not because they love freedom, but because they hate white people.
Democrats support granting refuge to refugees not out of compassion, but because they want to sneak Sharia Law into the country.
Democrats support environmental protection not out of concern for the environment (Al Gore flies in a jet!), but to destroy your jobs.
Democrats support a welfare state not because they want to ease the plight of the poor, but to perpetuate a modern day slavery.
Play Command HQ online
Think that's the same thing do you? Hehe
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Are you sure? Parent thinks it's the equivalent of pouring a bucket of water on someone and expecting them to drown. Kudos to you for not letting rip on that asinine stupidity.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
"The Left" - aaaaaand your credibility is gone. The dark hand of The Left is everywhere, is it not? lol.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Ethics. Gaming journalism. Keep fighting the good fight brah
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
There's always places a lawyer can lawyer. I imagine the words "you deserve a seizure" will feature prominently.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Yes, if you would bother to read anything. This isn't the first time that someone did this to the dude
Now if you will excuse me for exercising actual thought here, but NORMAL PEOPLE
Actually normal people realise that if you try and punch someone, it's not the fault of the victim if you succeed, even if someone else tried punching that person too.
Don't believe me? Try it and see what the law thinks.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Oh fuck off. That's your issue, that the incompetent Tucker Carlson-lackey reporter didn't look for evidence of a call, and now Eichenwald must prove that that happened?
Which circles right back to the point of my first post: Eichenwald filed a verified complaint in court, for which there is proof, that none of you have an answer for. Which is precisely what someone wouldn't do if this was a hoax. Because perjury has an even greater potential penalty than filing a false police report.
"There's no proof that he did call the cops" -- "which anyone can bring on anyone" also -- so the deplorables pat themselves on the back and conclude that there's no way any of this happened. Too bad Twitter is going to give up their information without a fight, with proof of the message and the IP that submitted it, and the ISP will likely give up the subscriber information as well. Too bad merely sending the message would fall within Texas' definition of an assault. Too bad he can file a police report at any time up to the running of the statute of limitations, and did so.
Too bad the "call the cops" distraction is so irrelevant.
I'm not sure how to take your use of the word "bizarro" in front of the 4th Amendment.
Is it meant to say it is bizarre or that our politicians and law enforcement often treat our expectation that we have 4th Amendment rights as bizarre?
At any rate, it doesn't seem the government compelled Twitter to hand over this information so he found the person he wants to sue. Do it.
It's an interesting case. I only know of Eichenwald from his recent appearance with Tucker Carlson on Fox and he came across as less than sympathetic. I really wanted to know more about Trump's amphetamine problem and his mental health issues, but he never stopped counter-attacking to ever establish anything.
I mean, I want to believe but what came up was allegation without evidence which sounded more like it was speculation and hearsay if anything.
But this was sent with the intent to hurt him. I doubt the sender really understands epilepsy very well. I'll admit I don't.
Just this.
I'm confused -- where did I claim that a police report was filed? You claim misdirection (the civil complaint), but then use "fabrication" (the police report was filed, or perhaps the civil complaint is fake). Those terms mean different things -- you're all over the map.
To be clear: I claimed that a civil complaint was filed. I also later said that there was no evidence that Eichenwald's wife had not "called the police to report the assault." It's all there in writing. Quote the fabrication. Quote the dishonesty.
Prove that a call was not made. Prove that a civil complaint was not filed. Deal with this self-contradictory mismash of bad reporting ("Newsweek senior writer Kurt Eichenwald filed a criminal complaint form with the Dallas Police Department Monday"; "A Dallas Police Department spokeswoman told TheDC Tuesday that the department still does not have a formal report, but that detectives have been looking into the case since Monday"; "A Dallas Police Department spokeswoman told TheDC Monday that a police investigation cannot happen without a police report").
Your "media," at a minimum, reports that he filed something with the DPD that has them "looking into the case." What is your motive for being "intentionally honest" by altering the wife's claim to have called the police into one of having filed a police report, by ignoring TheDC when its reporting begins to run against your preferred narrative, and by ignoring the civil complaint?
Oh, scary. If I look at your post history, will I find that you're projecting?
Blaming the victim of the crime for the crime being committed? What's next? "Yes, I slipped a date rape drug in her drink, your honor, but what happened next was her fault because she drank the drink."
Sometimes victims are to blame. If I handed a lady a note saying "I put a date rape drug in your drink, and if you drink it, I or someone will have our way with you", and they still chose to drink it, I would say that guilt falls on them too.
Guilt in a criminal case does not get apportioned between criminal and victim: you are thinking of contributory negligence in a civil case.
If I deliberately empty an automatic pistol into your head, it is not a defence to say "I warned you I was going to shoot, and you just stood there". It's still murder.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yup, a friend of mine in uni asked me to leave his office when I walked in eating a snickers, I would have been about 3 metres from him and he could feel himself reacting. The first thing he said to me when I walked in was "does that have peanuts in it"
Up until that point I had no idea you could be that sensitive to peanuts.
Is there any actual physical explanation for such an apparent sensitivity? Were some peanutty molecules sprayed over him when you breathed out or something? It sounds about as scientific as homeopathy on the face of it.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You see, in our victimhood culture, 'trying to hurt' suffers from definition creep. For example, you will encounter people seriously arguing that using racial slurs is "trying to hurt' and therefore should be considered an assault. Is sending a rape survivor explicit pictures constitutes an assault? What if he kills himself as a result of seeing such pictures?
If miscreants attempted to punch each other, it would have been much more black and white situation. However, they posted flashing pictures on Twitter. This doesn't fit my concept of assault. I also don't fully understand the implications of setting precedent that such action constitutes an assault. Are pictures actions or speech? Does it have to be targeted or broadcasting is sufficient?
The lawsuit will go nowhere. Then again, a lawsuit may not be the end game here. It's possible he just wants the person unmasked.
The man claims it caused a seizure, but without evidence to back it up, it's just a claim.
Now, handing out private user data based on one mans ( already questionable ) word is probably a very bad idea for Twitter lest they be held accountable for anything that may happen because of it.
Should you send folks seizure inducing imagery ? Probably not, but Twitter had better tread very carefully here. The potential for abuse is high and Twitter will be on the hook for it.
If you reply to this comment you owe me $12,000. I've made that pretty clear I think. So I'm sure you agree that not only are you a complete idiot, but that if you reply to this comment you will be legally bound to give me $12,000, yes?
-----
Except that, considering the medium, a more apt analogy would be putitng a note to that effect underneath the peanut-laced oil cake where it won't be seen until after the cake is eaten.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
What is "consent"? If it is anything less than a written (signed and solemnly notarized) note, how do we know, Trump didn't have it?
When Trump makes a statement without bountiful evidence to back it up, he is denounced as a liar — because absence of proof is, conveniently ("smoothly" you would say), is changed into proof of absence. For example:
Donald Trump Uses Twitter to Flat Out Lie About “Millions” of Illegal Votes in Election. See? No evidence, means it was not true — and he knew it to be untrue (otherwise it wouldn't be a "lie"): Trump never cites any sources and his campaign wouldn’t go into details about the claims but the information the president-elect is citing appears to have originated with the website InfoWars, which often pushes fringe far-right conspiracy theories. The story that claimed there were 3 million illegal votes was based on a couple of tweets that someone sent with absolutely no evidence. Why Does Donald Trump Lie About Voter Fraud? — same thing, a statement not backed up by irrefutable evidence is a lie. Not a mistake, not a hyperbole, a lie: There is not a scintilla of evidence for this claim, and Mr. Trump’s own lawyers have admitted as muchSo, if Trump's statements are lies unless proven (#PresumptionOfGuilt), how could he possibly prove having obtain consent from those women years ago? Only by getting it in writing... Which he failed to do and is, by the special rules created for Republican politicians, guilty.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I don't think, one should need a written permission for that kind of thing. Unfortunately, as Donald Trump's haters have amply demonstrated this year, you do need proof of consent in case you might, years later, become a Republican politician.
I know, I know. Only the people, who agree with you, are so qualified...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Look upthread anonymous moron.
Shouldn't we be aghast? We want tech companies to resist the courts, not comply.
Depends on the circumstances. This sounds reasonable, it was a deliberate, targeted attempt to cause physical harm to someone.
YMBNH. On slashdot everything is either wrong or right, regardless.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
He was boasting that he could grab women by the pussy because he was famous, not because he had their consent to do so. It was obvious from the context that he was saying he could do something that would not be acceptable and get away with it because of his fame and wealth. Kinda like how years later he boasted that he could murder someone in the street and get away with it.
Do you understand the problem? He is saying he can do it even though he DOESN'T have permission.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In the UK you can smell a snickers bar from several metres away and whether that causes an allergic response or not, I can easily imagine that to someone with a life threatening allergy getting psychosomatic symptoms as an instant response.
My heart says... go get that bastard who did this.
My head says... that's a violation of privacy expectations. No one expects their details to be released to other users of the system. In this case it was perhaps justified, but if they open the door there will be other requests for private information, some less just.
Nonsense, your privacy expectations do not extend to exemption from civil or criminal actions as a consequence of what you do.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
We live in a world of shades of grey.
But for many people on slashdot it's one of just black or white.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'm sure there are other ways, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
The aggressor made his intent clear in the verbal portion of his tweet.
The text is part of the image he copied, the "verbal portion of his tweet" was empty.
I'm not here to defend the media. But.
It didn't need to, and it did a good-enough job given the circumstances.
The media asked easy questions, and the leading presidential candidates ignored them or answered with "I don't have a fucking clue, but on an unrelated note, let me explain why you should vote against me" and then the voters voted for them anyway. IMHO, the problem is..
..the voters gave up. The media didn't cause us to end up with Trump; the voters did. And right up there with the shocking and disappointing fact that Trump got elected, there's an equally shocking and disappointing fact: that if Trump had lost, Clinton would have won! Has everyone already forgotten that?
Let's hypothetically imagine you had your good media. How would that have changed anything? Nearly everyone who voted for those people, was already informed well enough that they knew they shouldn't be voting for them. (And if they weren't informed, it's not like they didn't have the opportunity; they simply didn't take advantage.) But they voted for them anyway! Does your hypothetically-better media have people strapped into chairs Clockwork Orange-style?
If you're going to blame the media, then at least don't blame the news media. The news media did perfectly adequate job of conveying the candidates' emptiness. Maybe you can blame the media for not artistically inspiring people to give a fuck about their country. But even then, I just don't think it's appropriate.
It's on us. It's always on us. Every two years America loses its election, and then the voters try to blame someone else for the stupid thing they decided to do. The excuses are wearing thin. If we wait for America's adversaries (the Democrats and Republicans) to provide us with candidates, and then we vote for those candidates, that's not a media problem. The media can't force our hands in the voting both, nor force us to get someone decent on the ballot before then.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Or that his fame is what caused the women to consent...
So, you admit to having just as much evidence of him having sexually assaulted anyone, as of him murdering anyone in the street?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
He clearly did not imply that fame caused people to silently consent. That's just some lawyer bullshit to try to wriggle out of it. Come on mi, the guy already admitted it was "locker room talk" and apologised. No need to keep arguing the other way.
And yeah, I freely admit that what he said that time isn't evidence of an actual assault, just evidence of his shitty attitude and lack of respect.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
People with epilepsy will sue local police for turning on the lights and siren?
A complete idiot might think that, sure.
You have to be pretty mentally stunted to think that's the same thing.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Prosecution? This is a civil case. You're a fucking moron.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
What does any of this have to do with the case being discussed here?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
His posts were only controversial to Nazis. Anyone who had a functional brain, or bothered to fact check at all would have seen his posts were factually 100% true.
I know you are upset you were exposed to the world outside of your safe space, but the fact Trump supporters ARE Nazis. Period.
Eschenwald posted a pic of his police report in direct response to the Infowars lies, but you know, keep on fighting the fight against the Lizard men from the moon here to steal your cheese or whatever drug induced inanity Alex Jones is pushing on the least intelligent Americans that frequent his site today.
This doesn't fit my concept of assault.
I really hate to break this to you mate, but nobody gives a fuck what your definition of assault is.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Police in the states seem to be trained in conflict escalation - immediately point your firearm at the suspect - but I suppose that's a side effect of having an armed population.
Well, shooting people is exciting, isn't it.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Well, I just looked at his titter feed, and no he didn't.
Of course, it's perfectly reasonable for theater actors to be absolute cunts towards a customer who's paid exorbitant prices to watch their overrated show. Pence & family didn't go there to discuss anything: they went there to watch a performance that they PAID for. Something lost on Stalinists like you
He could be just asking for an opinion on the video... Journalists are so opinionated these times that it makes perfect sense.
You are one person, and your anecdote is no more valid than my anecdote, regardless of whether it involved you, or the guardian I grew up with. Sit down and shut the fuck up? that's your answer to your lame-ass broken argument from authority? You're right. Rarity of his claim precludes honesty of it. Thanks for helping me with my logic. The world needs more people like you.
Yeah, it's hard to imagine there are people out there who were dumb enough to think the whole thing was about SJW nonsense.
Typically, women do not consent to someone grabbing their pussy. A lack of objection is not necessarily consent, particularly in an imbalance of power situation. Women may be afraid to object, or unwilling to cause a scene, or simply taken aback and unable to react before the hand is removed. Written consent isn't required, but "they let you" isn't really evidence of consent.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Saying "kill all men" is perfectly legal in the US. It only becomes illegal when used as incitement. "All men should be killed" is an expression of opinion, one I really don't care about (there's always assholes saying bad things about groups I'm in). "There's a man - kill him like the rest" is a hostile action.
Directly harming someone is not covered under freedom of speech.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If the guy can know when peanuts are around with so slight an exposure, and/or show verifiable consistent reactions, then it's perfectly scientific. Science isn't limited by your imagination.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Some bad guys are smart. Some are dumb. Some are mostly smart and make stupid mistakes. It makes sense to investigate and see if there's a dead end somewhere.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Has this ever been seriously asked on Slashdot?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Are all police reports available to the media at all times, or do police departments sometimes withhold them while conducting investigations? I really don't know.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That could have been sent to anyone as a joke in poor taste.
I really don't care about your concept of assault. This was a deliberate attempt to cause physical harm, and that is normally considered assault. The fact that it's done in a fairly novel way doesn't affect that. The courts have held that free speech doesn't extend to using speech acts to physically harm people. You are not allowed to incite attack on another person, for example, or make credible threats of physical harm.
As far as the detailed questions go, that's really for a court to decide when specific cases come up.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's an action against a leftist, and hence not a crime.
Similarly, have you noticed that "law and order" types are all about the order, and are eager to disregard the law when it gets inconvenient, like when it provides rights to the accused?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Tells that people's cognitive dissonance is falling apart: asymmetrical faces while talking, irrational lashing out, uncontrolled crying, blaming everybody and everything, accepting obvious nonsense (it's end stage, earlier the nonsense had to at least sound plausible, just before the end black truly is white).
Being as disconnected from reality as a 'liberal' is hard work, they are losing energy and will eventually 'pop through to the real world'. All big lies start by lying to oneself, but when that finally falls, it is really over.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Getting into an online pissing match doesn't mean you suddenly gain the right to assault people.
You know, you might want to tell that to the Hillary supporters. The feel free to do whatever the hell they want.
Sometimes that results in them losing their teeth as the other guy knocks them out. They're Hillary supporters after all.
What the fuck will you guys call speech, next? The way you pull a trigger?
You know, conservatives have been asking that question for decades. How is showing the flag in a toilet free speech? Or having it such that you can't walk out of a building without walking on it free speech? Or a moving about how to kill GW Bush free speech? Consider the past 40 years. Get back to me.
Can dish it out, can't take it.
I believe they are public information. But in this case the media contacted Dallas pd and were told explicitly that there was no report or investigation.
Does he actually have to see it coming, or would he only have to have considered it a threat if he had seen it? I don't think that you have to have awareness for assault. I think it's the attempt to do harm that makes it assault.
I think that depends on how the particular jurisdiction defines it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Yes, but the dispatcher would log the call and the content.
Yes. I did say most though, not all.
How is showing the flag in a toilet free speech?
How is it not? Did it infringe on some right of yours? The right not to see a symbol of importance to you desecrated?
Or having it such that you can't walk out of a building without walking on it free speech?
How is it not? Are you really being serious with their queries?
Or a moving about how to kill GW Bush free speech?
Wellllll, that's protected speech, but it's also dangerous and in bad tastes, and if the threat is real, you can be prosecuted for it... and I certainly wouldn't object to it.
Did you really mean to try to spin that horse shit as an analogue to an attempt at causing someone actual physical harm?
Yes. Now point to any reporting that there's no log of the call. You can't, because the incompetent TheDC reporter only looked for a "police report" or complaint, which is a written form (e.g., the complaint forms here).
Now Pfeiffer reports that there is a police report, but can't be bothered to sort out whether it's "formal report" or to explain why a police investigation has started.
And that will be the end of "police report"-gate, since complaining that he didn't file a police report within 24 hours won't get traction with anyone except the super deplorable.
...
How is it not? Did it infringe on some right of yours? The right not to see a symbol of importance to you desecrated?
How is it not? Are you really being serious with their queries?
You really have no clue. The very freedoms that a lot of people have fought for and died for are yours as long as we can keep them. Once the're gone, they're gone. Showing disrespect for all that we stand for serves no useful purpose. In the name of free speech, we should be able to take that "artist" and tar and feather him, and beyond. Some of them I think deserve a very tight neck tie. I understand that you probably have no idea why I'd feel that way.
Or a moving about how to kill GW Bush free speech?
Wellllll, that's protected speech, but it's also dangerous and in bad tastes, and if the threat is real, you can be prosecuted for it... and I certainly wouldn't object to it.
Did you really mean to try to spin that horse shit as an analogue to an attempt at causing someone actual physical harm?
What horseshit? The movie was made and I think that everyone realizes the left means harm. They have such a rich history of that. From the Russian revolution, Nazis, even domestically with Bill Ayers. Bill teaches now instead of having a jail cell. Never served a day.
No, the real horseshit is in saying it's somehow free speech when it's a clear attack on everything we stand for. I understand you may have a tough time, you think things could be better, and so on. Realize that simply being an American citizen living here, you already are in the top 1% of the world. Have a little more respect. It's not too much to ask.
Like so many other people you attempt to go out of the boundaries of what was said to somehow make it incorrect or that you are right.
I already said in no way excuse what was done or think that persecution should be avoided (By stating in response I don't contest the persecution attempts on these individuals). Do you want me to repeat that line for you ten times so that it's clear? I never said it affected this particular case. What I /did/ say was that I hope this case doesn't affect other cases. The part where I said I wasn't contesting these specific individuals in response to the attempts of the law to persecute them?
You sure you don't want me to repeat it ten times? I feel like I probably need too.
You're almost a politician with what you said. I clearly stated it's possible to tell when an act is very far from any reasonable line. My concern was a slow inching of the reasonable line until that act that previously would had been clearly unreasonable, doesn't have such a gap so it is no longer "far from any reasonable line"
It's in the Data section of the settings. Took me a bit to find, but it's there.
-]Phreak Out[-
Where does Pfeiffer report that there is a police report? Seriously, you just posted a link that is in complete contradiction with your thesis.
The title:
Newsweek Writer Has Filed Complaint With Dallas PD Over Alleged Twitter Assault
and the very first sentence:
Newsweek senior writer Kurt Eichenwald filed a criminal complaint form with the Dallas Police Department Monday in relation to a tweet that allegedly caused a seizure Thursday.
are in complete contradiction to the thesis that he made a police report?
Please explain that one...
Because a complaint is not a report. And it also didn't happen when "his wife" claimed it did.
The Dallas Police Department appears to disagree, but what do they know.
Yet that was never my thesis. And that also isn't what she claimed. As was pointed out to you earlier, "I have your information and have called the police to report the assault" means a call, and Pfeiffer doesn't report anything about the call logs for last Thursday.
But you keep right on applying Bartles-specific definition of "police report," and equating a call with a "police report," and demanding that one have been filed on Thursday... The police and courts will do their thing regardless of your meaningless beliefs.
Showing disrespect for all that we stand for serves no useful purpose.
You may very well be right about that. But freedom of speech isn't about ensuring that everything done serves a useful purpose. Your proposal to criminalize disrespect of what YOU stand for is fascism, pure and simple. You try to paint it as something else, but you're straight up delusional.
What horseshit? The movie was made and I think that everyone realizes the left means harm. They have such a rich history of that. From the Russian revolution, Nazis, even domestically with Bill Ayers. Bill teaches now instead of having a jail cell. Never served a day.
The left? Oh boy. Nazis? The Nazi party may have started as a left-wing party, but it ceased to be one on The Night of the Long Knives when every single leftist in it was purged (see: executed) by the Hitler-supporting far-right wing of the party. You don't get to call the Nazi atrocities some kind of left-wing stereotypical behavior... Well, you do, because you're free to do and say anything you like, regardless of how stupid it is, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.
No, the real horseshit is in saying it's somehow free speech when it's a clear attack on everything we stand for. I understand you may have a tough time, you think things could be better, and so on. Realize that simply being an American citizen living here, you already are in the top 1% of the world. Have a little more respect. It's not too much to ask.
You need to get out and see the world. 1%? Not even close. Pretty high up- sure. Nowhere near 1%.
Again- an attack on the things you stand for is not an attack on you. You don't get to censor those who attack your beliefs. That's fucking fascism. You are a fascist. I don't personally burn flags, but I defend the *RIGHT* of asshats to do it.
You may very well be right about that. But freedom of speech isn't about ensuring that everything done serves a useful purpose. Your proposal to criminalize disrespect of what YOU stand for is fascism, pure and simple. You try to paint it as something else, but you're straight up delusional.
If it isn't for a useful purpose then why do it? It's done to incite. As much as a punch in the mouth. Since the guy doing it often has nothing to lose, kind of a tough situation. More on this later.
Not sure if you realized it or not, please don't put words into my mouth. I know the left loves to tell other people what they think the other person is thinking, stop it. Listen more. Do you even know what fascism is? Clearly not. I'm not a fascist. Did I ever say it should be criminalized? No. Here, find out what fascism is all about - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Bundle of sticks, H - "stronger together"... Humm.... Coincidence? Her Clinton Foundation, Eva Perone's foundation - anther fascist... coincidence?... Just sayin'
The left? Oh boy. Nazis? The Nazi party may have started as a left-wing party, but it ceased to be one on The Night of the Long Knives when every single leftist in it was purged (see: executed) by the Hitler-supporting far-right wing of the party. You don't get to call the Nazi atrocities some kind of left-wing stereotypical behavior... Well, you do, because you're free to do and say anything you like, regardless of how stupid it is, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.
Wow. Just wow. Revising history too. Know about communist, socialist and fascist? Clearly not. You have no clue. It's funny you think leftist become right. A lot of people were thrown off by the question to Stalin. They asked him where were the NAZIs compared to Communism. He said the Nazis are to the right, yes, right of Communism. Still plenty far to the left. Redirection.
Reminds me when they tried to make Americans all think in the 1960s that the racist Democrats all became Republicans and the Republicans became Democrats. http://blackrepublican.blogspo... . I still know people that believe that.
You need to get out and see the world. 1%? Not even close. Pretty high up- sure. Nowhere near 1%.
I've done quite well getting around the world. I've seen some real toilets. I rent to people that came from some real toilets in the world. I even have my own airplane. You need to get out more. Here's an article that I think will help -
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
So, if you include that top 1% with the other 99% of Americans, we're all in the top 1% of the world.
Go ahead, call the Washington Post a fascist/right wing paper. That'll be funny. You need to admit you're wrong. Even our poor have it darn well. To me.. man.. you really don't know. I've seen stuff that I couldn't get out of my head for a year. Still disturbs me, however even if I had a billion dollars to throw their way, it wouldn't change anything. Few things very briefly, however corruption would get probably all of it.
Again- an attack on the things you stand for is not an attack on you. You don't get to censor those who attack your beliefs. That's fucking fascism. You are a fascist. I don't personally burn flags, but I defend the *RIGHT* of asshats to do it.
Wow. Just wow. Really wow. You seem to defend the left. The left/democrats are all about telling us what we can and can't do. Regulations - which carry the power of law. From farms to where we can fish... all kinds of stuff. They even want to tell us what we can think. Anything other than what they
milo did not break tos, he cant and shouldnt be held accountable for the actions of people who follow him
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It looks like your epilepsy isn't the only brain problem you have. Clearly stupidity is also present.
Many things can trigger epileptic seizures, including flashing lights, or even looking at a fan's blades when they're moving. Just because you aren't affected that way doesn't mean nobody is.
Educate yourself or at least have the common decency to STFU.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.