4 ms·

The problem is that it's easy to say someone gave you a seizure, since -most- are not fatal, even if they didn't have a seizure. There's not much evidence again

The problem is that it's easy to say someone gave you a seizure, since -most- are not fatal, even if they didn't have a seizure. There's not much evidence against or supporting that you had a seizure from a gif. This really opens the door for abuse on both ends. So, I am skeptical of "throw the book at them" as a solution, because it would be so easy to fake and ruin someone. The solution should be with browser makers and social media companies to not have autoplay and be more cautious for photosensitive people. I mean, what if you accidentally give someone a seizure? Should you be held liable? I say this being a skeptic of this particular person's story, given his history.

rtpg 10y ago
So I'm not responsible for throwing a rock at your car because the windshield stopped it and didn't crack? There's documented evidence of intent here. The guy was trying to give their victim a seizure. There's nothing accidental here. Of course if someone accidentally gave someone else a seizure, there should be different standards applied. Of course! Also, yes, we need to make sure photosensitive people can browse more safely (for the same reason we put airbags in cars). The book you throw at them isn't "giving someone a seizure", it's "attempting to harm someone intentionally with super malicious intent".
- throwaway7767 10y ago
  > Also, yes, we need to make sure photosensitive people can browse more safely (for the same reason we put airbags in cars). I'm kind of surprised that we don't have "epilepsy mode" in a browser somewhere. Just limit the redraw speed. It'd mess with the browsing experience but much less than a seizure. Same for TVs, for an epileptic user it's much better for a highly dynamic scene to look washed out or just blur to a whitish color than to show it accurately and potentially cause a seizure.
jdietrich 10y ago
In this case, there is clear mens rea and actus rea. The accused openly stated that he intended to cause a seizure with the hope of causing actual bodily harm. He knowingly used a GIF as a weapon. That's vastly different from, say, a heavy metal band inadvertently causing a seizure with their stage lights, or an animator inadvertently drawing a sequence that triggers photosensitive epilepsy. By analogy, consider someone who deliberately drives their car at a bus stop and later brags on social media about trying to mow down pedestrians, versus someone who slips on black ice and spins out of control. I am fundamentally opposed to "throwing the book" at anyone - I'd much prefer a programme of evidence-based rehabilitation.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  I'm not sure he "openly stated that he intended to cause a seizure". The image itself says something like "You deserve a seizure" but that image has been around for years - this person did not create that image.
  - danso 10y ago
    The police found a direct message from the Twitter account stating "I hope this sends him into a seizure" and "I know he has epilepsy"
    - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
      Ahh, ok thanks.
twblalock 10y ago
Even if the attempt to cause a seizure didn't work, the attempt was itself a crime.

rtpg 10y ago

So I'm not responsible for throwing a rock at your car because the windshield stopped it and didn't crack? There's documented evidence of intent here. The guy was trying to give their victim a seizure. There's nothing accidental here. Of course if someone accidentally gave someone else a seizure, there should be different standards applied. Of course! Also, yes, we need to make sure photosensitive people can browse more safely (for the same reason we put airbags in cars). The book you throw at them isn't "giving someone a seizure", it's "attempting to harm someone intentionally with super malicious intent".

throwaway7767 10y ago
> Also, yes, we need to make sure photosensitive people can browse more safely (for the same reason we put airbags in cars). I'm kind of surprised that we don't have "epilepsy mode" in a browser somewhere. Just limit the redraw speed. It'd mess with the browsing experience but much less than a seizure. Same for TVs, for an epileptic user it's much better for a highly dynamic scene to look washed out or just blur to a whitish color than to show it accurately and potentially cause a seizure.

jdietrich 10y ago

In this case, there is clear mens rea and actus rea. The accused openly stated that he intended to cause a seizure with the hope of causing actual bodily harm. He knowingly used a GIF as a weapon. That's vastly different from, say, a heavy metal band inadvertently causing a seizure with their stage lights, or an animator inadvertently drawing a sequence that triggers photosensitive epilepsy. By analogy, consider someone who deliberately drives their car at a bus stop and later brags on social media about trying to mow down pedestrians, versus someone who slips on black ice and spins out of control. I am fundamentally opposed to "throwing the book" at anyone - I'd much prefer a programme of evidence-based rehabilitation.

ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
I'm not sure he "openly stated that he intended to cause a seizure". The image itself says something like "You deserve a seizure" but that image has been around for years - this person did not create that image.
- danso 10y ago
  The police found a direct message from the Twitter account stating "I hope this sends him into a seizure" and "I know he has epilepsy"
  - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
    Ahh, ok thanks.

twblalock 10y ago

Even if the attempt to cause a seizure didn't work, the attempt was itself a crime.