3 ms·

Every response is karma suicide, however, I am obviously referring to this exact specific case.. One would traditionally assume that posting a gif is not a crim

Every response is karma suicide, however, I am obviously referring to this exact specific case.. One would traditionally assume that posting a gif is not a crime, no matter the gif (with a few exceptions in the law such as certain types of pornography), in THIS case, the person I am responding to claims it is a crime because of the intent. And the precedent I am discussing is apparently whether or not posting a 'gif' image is assault, regardless of intent, which you are implying this case would claim. Please see my other comment, the one(and the paragraph) talking about 'kittens'. Explain to me the difference between this specific case and that one? How about those gifs which tell you to stare at the optical illusion, and after an arbitrary amount of time, show a terrifying skeleton. Is it a crime to post that without sufficient warning?(assuming it hurts someone psychologically - please apply this assumption to all of the following hypotheticals) Those would never 'go viral' if they contained warnings, obviously, and could be extremely and permanently damaging to certain people with relevant psychological conditions. If it isn't a crime to share those images, is it a crime to post them on an anxiety subreddit? If not, is it a crime to post them on an anxiety subreddit, with intention to trigger panic attacks, or similar, in their users? Is it a crime to email those to a person who enjoys optical illusions, has severe panic disorder and ptsd, and several heart conditions? how about with the intent to kill them? Does intent dictate criminality here? If not, what makes it criminal? Number of people affected by a given condition? Please continue down-voting each of my replies(so I am discouraged from proving my argument) and assume whatever titles are associated with that sort of behavior. Edit: Also worth noting that getting convicted is mostly irrelevant to my argument. I am trying to bring attention to the burden this sort of thing could put on a legal system, especially if it was 'weaponized,' as well as the burden of legal fees, time, and negative publicity, false claims like these would have on the defendant.

dang 10y ago
It looks to me like you're being downvoted because you're overposting and your comments are impossible to make sense of. Please stop.
jackvalentine 10y ago
> Does intent dictate criminality here? Yes. > Is it a crime to email those to a person who enjoys optical illusions, has severe panic disorder and ptsd, and several heart conditions? Maybe, it depends. In any case if your intent was pure but you're just stupid the case brought against you in the event of a mishap would be one of negligence.
- 69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
  Ok, I know nothing about law, but if that is the case, and we agree that an overseas ten year old kid could successfully distribute the images referenced in this case, to thousands of epileptics with a handful of fake social network accounts targeting online communities for epileptics on websites that auto-play gif's, with intentions to kill them, and zero chance of ever getting caught through investigation, than the only logical solution would be to temporarily shut down the internet until we find a solution; I can only imagine the fallout as soon as these terrorist organizations get word of these articles. Clearly this is many times more dangerous than firearms are, and there is zero regulation and virtually limitless access for everyone on earth. I'm not going to try and find statistics, but I'm willing to bet that posting an image to maybe hurt people you can't and have never seen, people that are hardly tangible, especially to a child, who have never exhibited any sort of actual tangible human actions in response to other, less drastic attacks (such as name calling) has got to be hundreds of times easier to rationalize and commit to for a child, or anyone, than it is for a child to choose to use a firearm on another human. When a child touches a gun without permission, all humans exhibit immediate terror, most young kids are probably afraid of guns, yet we have extreme regulations on those, however, children start using the internet on tablets and phones often before their first birthday. Companies that auto-play gif's and have had multiple reports of such images, should be held accountable, along with many others.
  - danso 10y ago
    Not sure if you're aware of this, but punishments are meted differently to 10-year-olds compared to adults. The suspect in this case was a 29-year-old man. And "most young kids are probably afraid of guns" sounds like something said by someone who didn't grow up in a rural state.
alphabettsy 10y ago
Criminal intent is one of the most important parts of law. If there is no criminal intent in many cases there is no crime. If you want to have a discussion, take some time to clearly articulate your arguments because it's hard to read. I think that's what's getting voted down, not necessarily that everyone disagrees with you.

dang 10y ago

It looks to me like you're being downvoted because you're overposting and your comments are impossible to make sense of. Please stop.

jackvalentine 10y ago

> Does intent dictate criminality here? Yes. > Is it a crime to email those to a person who enjoys optical illusions, has severe panic disorder and ptsd, and several heart conditions? Maybe, it depends. In any case if your intent was pure but you're just stupid the case brought against you in the event of a mishap would be one of negligence.

69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
Ok, I know nothing about law, but if that is the case, and we agree that an overseas ten year old kid could successfully distribute the images referenced in this case, to thousands of epileptics with a handful of fake social network accounts targeting online communities for epileptics on websites that auto-play gif's, with intentions to kill them, and zero chance of ever getting caught through investigation, than the only logical solution would be to temporarily shut down the internet until we find a solution; I can only imagine the fallout as soon as these terrorist organizations get word of these articles. Clearly this is many times more dangerous than firearms are, and there is zero regulation and virtually limitless access for everyone on earth. I'm not going to try and find statistics, but I'm willing to bet that posting an image to maybe hurt people you can't and have never seen, people that are hardly tangible, especially to a child, who have never exhibited any sort of actual tangible human actions in response to other, less drastic attacks (such as name calling) has got to be hundreds of times easier to rationalize and commit to for a child, or anyone, than it is for a child to choose to use a firearm on another human. When a child touches a gun without permission, all humans exhibit immediate terror, most young kids are probably afraid of guns, yet we have extreme regulations on those, however, children start using the internet on tablets and phones often before their first birthday. Companies that auto-play gif's and have had multiple reports of such images, should be held accountable, along with many others.
- danso 10y ago
  Not sure if you're aware of this, but punishments are meted differently to 10-year-olds compared to adults. The suspect in this case was a 29-year-old man. And "most young kids are probably afraid of guns" sounds like something said by someone who didn't grow up in a rural state.

alphabettsy 10y ago

Criminal intent is one of the most important parts of law. If there is no criminal intent in many cases there is no crime. If you want to have a discussion, take some time to clearly articulate your arguments because it's hard to read. I think that's what's getting voted down, not necessarily that everyone disagrees with you.