Trolls try to trigger epileptic seizures - is it assault?

[sanahtlig]

BBC: Trolls try to trigger seizures - is it assault?

An American journalist was sent a tweet intended to cause an epileptic seizure, and a seizure occurred.  Now he intends to press charges for assault in court.  Such a case would explore poorly-charted territory in case law: seeking civil or even criminal liability for intentional use of digital information to cause physical harm.

Fuwanovel is no stranger to trolls or flashing GIFs, so the topic seems particularly relevant here.

Edited January 24, 2017 by sanahtlig

[Darklord Rooke]

Oho, 100% legally assault if you can prove intent ... would be my assessment. If the image was just for lulz though, no.

But stupidity on the internet is causing us to rapidly move toward a future where there will be a concerted effort to curtail the freedoms and the consequence-free nature of the internet. Didn't have that in the 90s when people were more sensible, now every idiot can get on xD

[sanahtlig]

24 minutes ago, Darklord Rooke said:

Oho, 100% legally assault if you can prove intent ... would be my assessment. If the image was just for lulz though, no.

Well, the text of the image was "You deserve a seizure for your posts".  And in many cases, these images are targeted at known epileptics.

I have a family member who's had life-threatening epileptic attacks, so this isn't a laughing matter to me.  Even if intent can't be proven, reckless endangerment of others is still punishable by law.  If it results in death, we call it "manslaughter".

Edited January 24, 2017 by sanahtlig

[mitchhamilton]

oh my, this is quite serious indeed. i really dont know anything about seizures in terms of personal experience. the closest i can think of is my aunt has had them recently but ive never seen em but i can imagine it can be a terrifying experience. i dont know why some sick person would target a persons condition like that that could result in death. its literally no different than secretly feeding someone whos allergic to berries berries for lols.

[Okarin]

Trolling? That is hate mail in a very tangible form. Only that it's more harmful than insults: "sticks and stones can break bones, words can't really hurt".

Very creative way of spreading the hate and sabotaging a person you despise. And if it's unclear, I codemn this attitude. It's the ultimate ad hominem attack, exploiting a weakness of the other person (that's, of course, completely unrelated to his/her opinions and arguments).

[Funyarinpa]

Well, I ain't a lawyer so I don't know what *will* happen, but this is obviously a deliberate (and successful) attempt to cause harm. I don't see why that should not be punished by law.

[dfbreezy]

As a Law student, and with the facts you've mentioned above, the "troll" in question is liable for more than just assault. If a smart lawyer handles the plaintiff's case, he could also be charged with psychological harm, which is a touchy area of the law. 

But minus the surety of his liability, this action, along many others soon to come, may force the internet to have to adhere to a central authority in the near future. Even though the internet isn't as free as we think (there are eyes everywhere), those watcher thrive in the shadow. Continued acts of open violence would grant governments (i'm assuming through the U.N) to create a treaty that allows extensive control over the internet and it's resources. 

 If more an more people answer the question of "Is the internet a dangerous place that needs to be policed?" with a "yes." our freedoms with it, superficial or not, disappear in one go. 

It's sad that most of those who do things like this never stop to think about it. Jut use their basic logical processing to realize the bigger picture...  

[Norleas]

In a case like this, that is clearly the meant to do harm, i think the punishment is applicable, but trying to punish unintentional harm(not that case) could lead to some dangerous situations.

Cyber crimes are rising year by year and i see how some governments could use they as a excuse to monitor and censure the web, freedom in the internet could be dated.

[sanahtlig]

1 hour ago, Norleas said:

In a case like this, that is clearly the meant to do harm, i think the punishment is applicable, but trying to punish unintentional harm(not that case) could lead to some dangerous situations.

Even if the intent to do harm is clear by intuition, it'd be fairly easy to cast sufficient doubt on "malicious intent" in a court of law to escape a criminal conviction.  All the accused would have to do is suggest that there was no clear, foreseeable connection between his action and the outcome.  In other words, he could (likely successfully) claim that he didn't know that the target was epileptic, or that such images had a significant likelihood to cause physical harm to others.

Edited January 24, 2017 by sanahtlig

[Akimoto Masato]

Yea that's pretty fucked up, people lose brain cells every time they have a seizure so this guy deserves to die in a hole

[pual]

I think people who do these things don't really get what the consequences of a seizure can be. It's rather violent and can last 20min easily, there's real risk of hitting head to something sharp. Of course there are malicious people too but I doubt all are.

[Ariurotl]

Goddammit internet. In my day, you had to actually walk up (20 miles in the snow, uphill both ways) to someone you wanted to assault and punch them in the face.

[Akimoto Masato]

11 minutes ago, Ariurotl said:

Goddammit internet. In my day, you had to actually walk up (20 miles in the snow, uphill both ways) to someone you wanted to assault and punch them in the face.

In my day you had to do that buttt you also had a boner 

[AaronIsCrunchy]

Innovation has constantly allowed people to discover new ways of harming and antagonising people, and the Internet's not any different really. The fact that the Internet removes the physical meeting of the two people (or however many there are) is, or at least should be, irrelevant - you've gone out of your way to cause harm, and therefore should be penalised as such. And sadly, as much as it might impinge on certain freedoms, laws should have to move with these innovations, otherwise they become an increasingly dangerous weapon to use against others.

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by AaronIsCrunchy