U.S man arrested for seizure inducing tweet..

Post Reply New Topic

That is really, f*cked up and apparently 40 other people also sent similar things to the person upon learning about this. Anyways seriously f*cked up.
A man accused of sending a flashing image to a writer in order to trigger an epileptic seizure has been arrested, the US justice department says.
John Rayne Rivello, 29, of Maryland, sent Kurt Eichenwald an animated image with a flashing light on Twitter in December, causing the seizure.
He has been charged with criminal cyber stalking and could face a 10-year sentence, the New York Times reports.
"You deserve a seizure for your post," he is alleged to have written.
Mr Eichenwald is known to have epilepsy. He is a senior writer at Newsweek magazine, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a best-selling author of books including The Informant.
'Let's see if he dies'
Investigators found that Mr Rivello had sent messages to other Twitter users about Mr Eichenwald and a plan to attack him virtually, including one that read: "I hope this sends him into a seizure".


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39315393

Dickish as the act was, arresting someone and possibly sending them up the river for 10 years for posting something on the internet sets a dangerous precedence.

Really? People get arrested for sending things through the mail — letter bombs, ransom demands, and the like. How is this different?

It's not like the guy accidentally sent the flashing image. It was done with malicious aforethought — as demonstrated by the text he sent accompanying the image.

Good luck sending a letter bomb via e-mail.
Ransom demands sent by any method implies kidnapping which is the crime that'll send you up the river.


So then what, we start sending people up the river for hurting people's feelings online and causing them emotional "injuries"?

Can't imagine he'll be convicted criminally, maybe a civil case

You are aware that a seizure is not an emotional injury? It's not like the guy's feelings were hurt. The image was deliberately intended to cause physical injury and it did. I'd say that comparing it to a letter bomb is quite apt.

How would you feel about using the internet to hack into someone's pacemaker, inducing a heart attack? Would that be okay in your book?

Do you know what is meant by setting a precedence?
How about Pandora's box?

The world is not a safe place for snowflakes...

How can they determine that it was this person's image that caused the seizure specifically if there were other people doing the same?

Assault with a deadly weapon is an absolutely ridiculous charge

Not everyone who sees a flashing light has a seizure.

Not surprised to see a few people on here defending and trying to spin this. This is harassment and these people intended to cause harm.

Yes. It's the order in which people or things are ranked.
Not sure what it has to do with this situation. Perhaps you mean precedent?

And the precedent would be: people who commit assault get prosecuted and, possibly, jailed.
As far as I know, that's been the precedent for several centuries now. Not sure why you think it's a bad idea.


Having epilepsy is not being a snowflake.

Seriously, you're on a board for autistics and you think deliberately targeting a person's disability is okay?

Not everyone has epilepsy.

Yeah whatev...
Call me a obstructor of justice and a bully enabler and let's move on.

I don't want to call you anything.
I thought we were discussing the legal merits of the case.
I think it's valid. You obviously think otherwise — though I'm not sure why.

That's a pretty flimsy defense, Jacoby. That would be like if a dozen people all conspired to poison one guy's drink, and then said "how do you know it was my poison that made him sick and almost killed him?"