Eichenwald has made many enemies and intentionally became part of his own reporting. He is his own victim. That a reporter like that would challenge the first amendment with a naive emotionally charged approach should give anyone pause.
sorry, what? i don't think assault is protected by the first amendment. at the risk of sounding naive i have to ask why Manson wasn't protected under the first amendment?
Is assault possible with only words and images? If it entices someone to commit acts of violence, yes. If it is the words themselves that cause injury, the reader has the option to not engage in risky behavior.
break it down this way: some guy literally tried to give another guy a seizure. are the means by which he tried to induce the seizure even relevant? would anyone really suggest taking action with this intent should not be punishable?
a lot of people want to say "oh but free speech...?"-- as if to imply you're free to kill someone as long as you only use words to do it.
How do we know Eichenwald actually had a seizure? Why wouldn't he take precautions if he knew using a computer could cause a seizure? He appears to have motive to lie, an opportunity to get away with it, and a proven desire to be the "hero" in his own reporting. He is his own victim.
> It's not reasonable to introduce additional first amendment restrictions or award damages in response to targeted prank tweets by internet trolls.
the medium is irrelevant. the first amendment does not cover all forms of expression and speech. period, man.
> Why wouldn't he take precautions if he knew using a computer could cause a seizure?
it's like saying, why cross the street if you know you can get hit by a car? obviously there is a statistical difference, but that would suggest a slippery slope. other posters in this thread have given less extreme examples of this spectrum.
you have to look at it from the perspective of intent.
honest question: if yesterday i'd asked you "some guy maliciously and willfully gave another guy a seizure, should he be punished?". would you respond, "depends, how'd he do it?"
I agree violence should be met with appropriate justice.
Circumstances and context are rarely as cut and dried as your honest question. For example, there are some people alive that I'd rather they not be. Without context only a psychopath would think that. But if I add "9/11 victim" as context? Then you not only get it, you're on board.
It's the same here. On the surface it's shocking and offensive, but when you learn of prior behavior it becomes reasonable to doubt a reporter that hid his direct participation in news stories he was reporting. It seems more likely to me the victim seeks fame and fortune rather than justice.
The medium is relevant due to state lines. This is a Federal offense, where the guilty party goes to big boy prison and never gets a good job interview again. For what is widely viewed as an Internet prank. Pretty sure there's a Simpson episode with a similar prank too.
Disabled people have many precautions they take just to get thru each day. Many are required by law to report their medical status on a regular basis. It's not a stretch to ask if any precautions were taken in this case because if none were and a doctor had advised the victim differently there is less merit here.
1. first amendment does not mean you can say or do whatever you wish 2. if the we can assume the facts are correct, the guy should be punished accordingly
which, if i understand correctly, are two points you'd not even disagree with, barring any new evidence.