# (((Kurt))) claims FBI arrested man who posted "You deserve a seizure" meme at him on Twitter



## Null (Mar 18, 2017)

If you're wondering what a military, authoritarian police looks like, this is it.


----------



## Null (Mar 18, 2017)

Can confirm.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...alist-kurt-eichenwald-tweet-triggered-seizure
https://archive.md/QtSe3

Fuck these people.


----------



## AngeloTheWizard (Mar 18, 2017)

Also, if you guys are wondering (Like I was) if he actually does have epilepsy, he does: 

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/11/magazine/braving-epilepsy-s-storm.html

The TL;DR of it is that's an article (((Kurt))) has written about his own battles with epilepsy. While I'm not going to stand up and defend this fucker, that image may actually have given him an honest to God seizure.


----------



## zedkissed60 (Mar 18, 2017)

Null said:


> Can confirm.
> 
> http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...alist-kurt-eichenwald-tweet-triggered-seizure
> https://archive.md/QtSe3
> ...



"The agency announced that John Rayne Rivello, 29, of Salisbury, Md., was arrested Friday morning in Maryland on a cyberstalking charge."

Dox
John Rayne Rivello
1808 E Clear Lake Dr
Salisbury MD 21804-1972
DOB August 5, 1987 (age 29)




  

John's father, David, is a retired DEA Special Agent.
https://www.justice.gov/archive/usa...hersforTheirContributionstoWicomicoExile.html


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 18, 2017)

http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/john-...-gif-suspect-who-age-job-bio-photos-maryland/


----------



## Curt Sibling (Mar 18, 2017)

"People" like this spazi-nazi clown Eichenwank give the pigs all the excuses they need to roll out the draconian policing.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Mar 18, 2017)

Dude may be a dick, but trying to give someone a seizure is seriously fucked up.  If someone had done that to me, (which wouldn't have succeeded, since I don't have photo-sensitive epilepsy), I'd go and beat the living shit out of the motherfucker.  Seizures fucking SUCK.  

(Note:  this is NOT a defense of Eichenwald.)


----------



## Cato (Mar 18, 2017)

I don't know enough about Eichenwald to provide any commentary about whether he's a piece of shit or deserves some form of abuse.

Speaking more broadly though, it's not at all unreasonable that intentionally sending seizure-inducing material to someone one knows to have photosensitive epilepsy would be considered a criminal offense. Calling this "authoritarian" is moronic.


----------



## Sergeant Politeness (Mar 18, 2017)

Cato said:


> Speaking more broadly though, it's not at all unreasonable that intentionally sending seizure-inducing material to someone one knows to have photosensitive epilepsy would be considered a criminal offense. Calling this "authoritarian" is moronic.


I think it's a little overkill to get the FBI involved over it, though.

This part annoyed me though:


> "What Mr. Rivello did with his Twitter message was no different from someone sending a bomb in the mail or sending an envelope filled with anthrax spores."


I fail to see the comparison. One's a fucking bomb, one's a deadly toxin, the other is a flashing GIF. Could it kill someone? I guess, but they're certainly not on the same level. Like, at all.


----------



## Cato (Mar 18, 2017)

Sergeant Politeness said:


> I think it's a little overkill to get the FBI involved over it, though.



I'm not American so I'm not entirely sure if this is the case, but my assumption was that the FBI was involved not due to any question of degree of severity, but because it was a cybercrime that crossed state lines and thus warranted federal jurisdiction. I'm open to correction.



Sergeant Politeness said:


> I fail to see the comparison. One's a fucking bomb, one's a deadly toxin, the other is a flashing GIF. Could it kill someone? I guess, but they're certainly not on the same level. Like, at all.



Yes, that's a dumb and hyperbolic analogy that actual makes what happened in this case seem less serious by comparison. But it's Eichenwald's lawyer that said that; his job is to advocate for him (and I think he did a poor job of it given that, like I said, it's a bad comparison...but my point is, of course he'll try to "sell" this).

But a stupid comparison doesn't undermine the point that there are still valid and readily apparent reasons this kind of behaviour would be criminalized. There are also differences in severity between assault and murder but the former is still a crime and should be.

Also from the article:



> According to a criminal complaint, messages sent from Rivello's Twitter account mentioned Eichenwald, saying "I know he has epilepsy," "I hope this sends him into a seizure" and "let's see if he dies."



This guy definitely made the investigators' and prosecutors' jobs easy and presented a great argument for precisely why he's been charged.


----------



## Michel (Mar 18, 2017)

Sergeant Politeness said:


> I think it's a little overkill to get the FBI involved over it, though.
> 
> This part annoyed me though:
> 
> I fail to see the comparison. One's a fucking bomb, one's a deadly toxin, the other is a flashing GIF. Could it kill someone? I guess, but they're certainly not on the same level. Like, at all.


The point is that it's still malicious.


----------



## DuskEngine (Mar 18, 2017)

i love US politics


----------



## ICametoLurk (Mar 18, 2017)

> "What Mr. Rivello did with his Twitter message was no different from someone sending a bomb in the mail"



The Unibomber could have saved some time sending .gifs instead of mailing bombs.


----------



## DuskEngine (Mar 18, 2017)

ICametoLurk said:


> The Unibomber could have saved some time sending .gifs instead of mailing bombs.



This is also basically the plot of Snow Crash


----------



## Ravenor (Mar 18, 2017)

This is a really shitty thing to do, even if you don't like the person in question knowingly sending someone a .gif likely to cause a seasure who has epilepsy is taking things to far, this isn't like blasting pictures of holes or something to someone on Tumblr who claims to have a fear of them because it's got a cool sounding name, etc it's fucking with a serious medical condition that could have consequences reaching far beyond what you intended, hell there is warnings on films and tv for people with this condition for just this fucking reason. 

What a cunt.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 18, 2017)

I hope this asshole is forced to prove this shit actually even happened.

Because I doubt he can.  

If you or I, even if we actually had epilepsy, got spammed with strobing gifs or such bullshit, guess what the FBI would do when we filed a complaint about it?

If you guessed NOTHING, you'd be entirely correct.  This is also what the FBI would do if our site got DDoSed by flat out fucking terrorists, angry child molesters, and all the other scum who have committed literal crimes against us.

This prosecution is because the fake victim is in a privileged class, the media.  He gets to make up lies about having seizures because he's upset about looking like an idiot on Tucker Carlson's show.






There.

If he had a seizure, it was from getting his ass handed to him by Tucker Carlson.

IMO his claim of having a seizure from some gif is bullshit, and I've seen similar attention whores pull this stunt, and the tweet after his supposed seizure is exactly what a faker would tell his SO to do after making up some bullshit.


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Mar 18, 2017)

Mrs Paul said:


> If someone had done that to me, (which wouldn't have succeeded, since I don't have photo-sensitive epilepsy), I'd go and beat the living shit out of the motherfucker.



No you wouldn't, get over yourself.

Delete the pictures and block the people sending you that shit. Done. You don't have to open the GIF. If you open them accidentally, fucking look away or close your eyes. I really doubt that the seizure hits instantly as soon as you see the first half-second of a flashing GIF.

This is ridiculous.


----------



## Jason Genova (Mar 18, 2017)

Mrs Paul said:


> If someone had done that to me I'd go and beat the living shit out of the motherfucker.





Spoiler



Female, 38


----------



## Francis E. Dec Esc. (Mar 18, 2017)




----------



## Julius Evola (Mar 18, 2017)

How is (((Eichenwald))) going to prove he had a seizure in court? He was crowing about this from the moment it supposedly happened, but I haven't seen anything  about him calling EMS, visiting the hospital, seeing a doctor, or anything like that. All he has is his wife as a witness (supposedly) and some twitter posts. It's literally his word against the accused unless there are tweets about hospitals or something that I missed. 

It is also my understanding that unless you fall and injure yourself or something there really isn't any evidence of a seizure having occurred unless you get a brain scan or w/e right after the fact. 

I doubt that's enough to convict anyone of a crime.


----------



## Cato (Mar 18, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> IMO his claim of having a seizure from some gif is bullshit, and I've seen similar attention whores pull this stunt, and the tweet after his supposed seizure is exactly what a faker would tell his SO to do after making up some bullshit.





Julius Evola said:


> How is (((Eichenwald))) going to prove he had a seizure in court? He was crowing about this from the moment it supposedly happened, but I haven't seen anything  about him calling EMS, visiting the hospital, seeing a doctor, or anything like that. All he has is his wife as a witness (supposedly) and some twitter posts. It's literally his word against the accused unless there are tweets about hospitals or something that I missed.
> 
> It is also my understanding that unless you fall and injure yourself or something there really isn't any evidence of a seizure having occurred unless you get a brain scan or w/e right after the fact.
> 
> I doubt that's enough to convict anyone of a crime.



Legally, as well as ethically, whether he actually had a seizure is irrelevant. The guy who sent the gif explicitly stated that his intention was to trigger a seizure, and the gif was capable of doing so. If you fire a gun at someone with the intent to shoot them and you miss, that doesn't absolve you of all legal and moral responsibility.

Apparently the charge was for cyberstalking; his actions and intentions are enough to support the charges regardless of whether the gif actually triggered a seizure or not.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 18, 2017)

Mrs Paul said:


> Dude may be a dick, but trying to give someone a seizure is seriously fucked up.  If someone had done that to me, (which wouldn't have succeeded, since I don't have photo-sensitive epilepsy), I'd go and beat the living shit out of the motherfucker.  Seizures fucking SUCK.
> 
> (Note:  this is NOT a defense of Eichenwald.)



NO!  SEIZURES RULE!


----------



## Julius Evola (Mar 18, 2017)

Cato said:


> Legally, as well as ethically, whether he actually had a seizure is irrelevant. The guy who sent the gif explicitly stated that his intention was to trigger a seizure, and the gif was capable of doing so. If you fire a gun at someone with the intent to shoot them and you miss, that doesn't absolve you of all legal and moral responsibility.
> 
> Apparently the charge was for cyberstalking; his actions and intentions are enough to support the charges regardless of whether the gif actually triggered a seizure or not.



I agree with this assessment, but having read the pertinent statute I'm not sure that I believe this rises to a "stalking" charge. Stalking, in a legal sense, generally requires a pattern of conduct be established. I don't know if I buy that Rivello's conduct constituted a "pattern". 

It should also be noted how Eichenwald figured out who Rivello was. He donated to a charity for epilepsy as a means of apology to Eichenwald following the "attack" and did so in his own name. From that, Eichenwald was somehow able to get a hold of his real name and send in the feds.


----------



## Null (Mar 18, 2017)




----------



## AnOminous (Mar 18, 2017)

I don't even believe the original event that started this case happened.  I think Eichenwald made it all up.


----------



## Cato (Mar 18, 2017)

Julius Evola said:


> I agree with this assessment, but having read the pertinent statute I'm not sure that I believe this rises to a "stalking" charge. Stalking, in a legal sense, generally requires a pattern of conduct be established. I don't know if I buy that Rivello's conduct constituted a "pattern".



This is a more interesting and valid legal question. It seems to me that this is a pretty novel case and that the legal system has not kept pace with technology to develop clear and applicable laws around this kind of thing.

I looked at numerous articles about this and read the affidavit, and every source just said the charge was "criminal cyberstalking with the intent to kill or cause bodily harm." I could not find an exact section he was charged with anywhere and there are several federal laws in the US against cyberstalking so I can't figure out which one he was charged under and, by extension, what the elements of the offense he was charged under are.

I do know that under 18 U.S.C. 875(c) it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another. This does not require a pattern of conduct at all and a singular event can justify a charge, and the suspect in this case did this and more (articles stated that the charges he received could result in a sentence of up to ten years in prison though, so this was not the section he was charged under). I don't think something like this _should _require more than a singular incident to charge over, either.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 18, 2017)

Cato said:


> I do know that under 18 U.S.C. 875(c) it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another. This does not require a pattern of conduct at all and a singular event can justify a charge, and the suspect in this case did this and more (articles stated that the charges he received could result in a sentence of up to ten years in prison though, so this was not the section he was charged under). I don't think something like this _should _require more than a singular incident to charge over, either.



In theory, I'd agree with you, but in reality, I don't even believe the original event occurred.  I also think this is the thin edge of the wedge where people claiming to be "triggered" by opinions they don't agree with can claim to be actually physically affected by them and therefore turn disagreement with their bullshit into a crime.


----------



## Cato (Mar 18, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> In theory, I'd agree with you, but in reality, I don't even believe the original event occurred.



Just to clarify, are you are referring to the sending of the tweet or whether it actually triggered a seizure?

I'd be willing to accept suggestions that he didn't actually have a seizure, but I don't think that's relevant to criminal charges given the clear intent and plausible risk of harm. The tweet exists and I don't think one can reasonably claim that the fact that the suspect sent it was some conspiracy concocted by the FBI.



AnOminous said:


> I also think this is the thin edge of the wedge where people claiming to be "triggered" by opinions they don't agree with can claim to be actually physically affected by them and therefore turn disagreement with their bullshit into a crime.



Calling this a slippery slope fallacy would be an understatement.

I've seen other posts of yours and you're clearly an intelligent person so I really think you're being disingenuous here.


----------



## Cato (Mar 18, 2017)

Null said:


>



So, some laws pertaining to very serious crimes could and should be enforced better, therefore lesser (but still reasonably serious) crimes shouldn't be investigated at all? What kind of an argument is that?


----------



## Null (Mar 18, 2017)

Cato said:


> So, some laws pertaining to very serious crimes could and should be enforced better, therefore lesser (but still reasonably serious) crimes shouldn't be investigated at all? What kind of an argument is that?


Fuck off kike



AnOminous said:


> I don't even believe the original event that started this case happened.  I think Eichenwald made it all up.


Hence why they went with Cyberstalking charges instead of Aggravated Assault changes. He needs to fight them tooth and nail because it's a bullshit charge. This is federal bullying hoping for a plea bargain.


----------



## millais (Mar 18, 2017)

People have been sending strobing gifs to Eichenwald for years before this incident. In previous articles and postings, he admitted none had never triggered a seizure since he always had enough time to look away or turn away the screen.


----------



## Julius Evola (Mar 18, 2017)

millais said:


> People have been sending strobing gifs to Eichenwald for years before this incident. In previous articles and postings, he admitted none had never triggered a seizure since he always had enough time to look away or turn away the screen.



But very soon after embarrassing himself on national television by coming off like an unhinged lunatic with a binder full of "evidence" that looked like it was most likely blank paper, he goes balls to the wall after someone doing the exact same thing. 

Really makes you think.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Mar 18, 2017)

Varg Did Nothing Wrong said:


> No you wouldn't, get over yourself.
> 
> Delete the pictures and block the people sending you that shit. Done. You don't have to open the GIF. If you open them accidentally, fucking look away or close your eyes. I really doubt that the seizure hits instantly as soon as you see the first half-second of a flashing GIF.
> 
> This is ridiculous.




Wanna bet?  And it wasn't the first time, either.  

There are many different types of epilepsy.  Photosensitive epilepsy, the type we're speaking of here, actually isn't as common as most people think.  (I for one don't have it)  Also, as with most seizure disorders, it varies on severity.  Some people don't have a problem with flashing gifs, but will be bothered by say, strobe lights.  Then some people can't even handle flash photography.  (I believe that's the case with Adam Horowitz of the Beastie Boys -- he has to wear special glasses while on stage).  Fluorescent lighting has been known to cause seizures. 
Most epileptics, like myself, are able to keep their seizures under control with meds.  Yet there are rare cases where sufferers will have constant grand mal seizures all day long -- often the only option is brain surgery.

Also, keep in mind that most of the time, seizures aren't full-on, bite your tongue, fall over and jerk around grand mals.  They could be just auras, or focal seizures.  These are usually more frequent than a grand-mal, but many of them over time can be just as debilitating.  (They do impair driving, for example)


My point?  Whether or not Eichenwald actually had a seizure, and it may be overkill to involve the FBI.  But it's an extremely shitty thing to do to someone.  And would I actually go after that person? Maybe not.  But I'd be mighty fucking tempted.  If this is being a SJW, or power-leveling, so fucking be it.  
(I also don't mind educating people about epilepsy.  People seem to think I'll see a flashing light and fall down and wet my pants.  Um, no.  Oh, and don't EVER stick your hand in someone's mouth if they're seizing.  Not unless you want to lose a couple of fingers)


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Mar 18, 2017)

Mrs Paul said:


> Wanna bet?  And it wasn't the first time, either.
> 
> There are many different types of epilepsy.  Photosensitive epilepsy, the type we're speaking of here, actually isn't as common as most people think.  (I for one don't have it)  Also, as with most seizure disorders, it varies on severity.  Some people don't have a problem with flashing gifs, but will be bothered by say, strobe lights.  Then some people can't even handle flash photography.  (I believe that's the case with Adam Horowitz of the Beastie Boys -- he has to wear special glasses while on stage).  Fluorescent lighting has been known to cause seizures.
> Most epileptics, like myself, are able to keep their seizures under control with meds.  Yet there are rare cases where sufferers will have constant grand mal seizures all day long -- often the only option is brain surgery.
> ...



I love how you typed 3 paragraphs and provided links to shit without actually responding to me or anything I said.


----------



## Ruin (Mar 18, 2017)

Shitty thing to do or not it's concerning to me that being kind of an asshole is something you can be federally prosecuted for. There are rapists who have received less than this guy could potentially get.


----------



## Cato (Mar 18, 2017)

Ruin said:


> Shitty thing to do or not it's concerning to me that being kind of an asshole is something you can be federally prosecuted for. There are rapists who have received less than this guy could potentially get.



A maximum is just that; a maximum. Almost nobody gets sentenced to the maximum allowable by law. That doesn't invalidate the point that maximum sentences should be reasonable, but it's not reasonable to compare a maximum sentence for one offense with actual sentences applied for another.

Also, referring to this as "being an asshole" is an understatement.


----------



## Maiden-TieJuan (Mar 18, 2017)

Cato said:


> I don't know enough about Eichenwald to provide any commentary about whether he's a piece of shit or deserves some form of abuse.
> 
> Speaking more broadly though, it's not at all unreasonable that intentionally sending seizure-inducing material to someone one knows to have photosensitive epilepsy would be considered a criminal offense. Calling this "authoritarian" is moronic.



Could it be considered assault?  I kind of wonder if this could be used as a "Stepping Stone" kind of case.


----------



## Cato (Mar 18, 2017)

Maiden-TieJuan said:


> Could it be considered assault?  I kind of wonder if this could be used as a "Stepping Stone" kind of case.



It's definitely unique enough to set precedent. The charge referred to "intent to kill or cause bodily harm," so it more or less is being considered a form of assault.


----------



## Maiden-TieJuan (Mar 18, 2017)

Cato said:


> It's definitely unique enough to set precedent. The charge referred to "intent to kill or cause bodily harm," so it more or less is being considered a form of assault.


But for it to be assault doesn't he have to prove that the seizure happened?  Not just that it COULD HAVE happened, but that it actually did because of the guy'said tweet.  I also have Epilepsy, and have had a flashing light based seizure a couple times, but it is kind of hard to prove it was due to the lights and not to another trigger (like stress from being told "you deserve a seizure", from other factors like meds being off or what ever else was going on.)  The proof would have to be concrete in criminal court, as opposed to civil where you just have to prove it is more likely then not that it caused it.


----------



## Cato (Mar 18, 2017)

Maiden-TieJuan said:


> But for it to be assault doesn't he have to prove that the seizure happened?  Not just that it COULD HAVE happened, but that it actually did because of the guy'said tweet.  I also have Epilepsy, and have had a flashing light based seizure a couple times, but it is kind of hard to prove it was due to the lights and not to another trigger (like stress from being told "you deserve a seizure", from other factors like meds being off or what ever else was going on.)  The proof would have to be concrete in criminal court, as opposed to civil where you just have to prove it is more likely then not that it caused it.



As stated, I cannot find the precise section as there are several federal laws against cyberstalking and I looked at a dozen articles and the affidavit which did not clarify the exact law he was charged under (I would love for this to be clarified but the reporting on this is garbage and nobody in this thread seems to know either). With that said, the description of the charge was "criminal cyberstalking with the intent to kill or cause bodily harm." This would very strongly suggest that no, it is not relevant whether the seizure actually happened, provided that the offender intended for it to happen (and there is an orgy of evidence establishing that he did indeed intend as much).


----------



## millais (Mar 18, 2017)

looks like Kurt's butt-buddies in the MSM are signal boosting his case
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39315393


----------



## Mrs Paul (Mar 18, 2017)

If it's not possible to prove he had a seizure, then they still might be able to go with a lesser charge, like attempted assault.  (Maybe.  My knowledge of the law is mostly gleaned from watching "Law & Order", so please don't take that as gospel)



Varg Did Nothing Wrong said:


> I love how you typed 3 paragraphs and provided links to shit without actually responding to me or anything I said.



The hell I didn't.  You said:




Varg Did Nothing Wrong said:


> No you wouldn't, get over yourself.
> 
> Delete the pictures and block the people sending you that shit. Done. You don't have to open the GIF. If you open them accidentally, fucking look away or close your eyes. I really doubt that the seizure hits instantly as soon as you see the first half-second of a flashing GIF.
> 
> This is ridiculous.



While Eichenwald may have been able to do the latter, it's not always possible to "fucking look away or close your eyes", and that indeed a seizure often "hits instantly as soon as you see the first half-second of a flashing GIF."  Did you not read my first two links?  That very thing happened to people who visited the Epilepsy Foundation's website after it was hacked.  As my other link showed, there are various types of epilepsy, and not everyone has the same triggers.  

(And you really need to have your sarcasm meter checked if you honestly believed that I was serious about stalking someone and then assaulting them.)

I am NOT defending Eichenwald -- he sounds like a real jagoff.  That doesn't mean the guy who did this to him isn't an asshole as well.


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Mar 18, 2017)

Mrs Paul said:


> While Eichenwald may have been able to do the latter



OK, so we're in agreement then that Eichenwald is in no real danger from someone on Twitter sending him a flashing GIF. Apparently he himself agrees too, because he openly states that he's had things like that sent to him before with no ill effects.



> That doesn't mean the guy who did this to him isn't an asshole as well.



Sure, he's an asshole. But there's a fine line between asshole and criminal.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Mar 18, 2017)

Varg Did Nothing Wrong said:


> OK, so we're in agreement then that Eichenwald is in no real danger from someone on Twitter sending him a flashing GIF. Apparently he himself agrees too, because he openly states that he's had things like that sent to him before with no ill effects.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, he's an asshole. But there's a fine line between asshole and criminal.



Of course.  I think that goes without saying.


----------



## Lurkman (Mar 20, 2017)

Did his seizure look like this by any chance?


----------



## Jubileus (Mar 20, 2017)

I hope that, barring this getting dropped entirely, it goes to court and isn't just settled.  Eichenwald having to take the stand and getting blown out based on his character would be beautiful to watch.

Folks are probably acquainted with the part where Eichenwald baldly lies about shit if it'll get his face in front of a camera.  Another fun story takes us back to 2005, when Eichenwald spent $2,000 to purchase a camboy he thought was underage in order to "rescue" him from the trade and make a story about it (he wasn't underage at that point, for the record).  He then proceeded to send even more money (at least another $1100) to the guy and then blamed his "condition" for mental lapses where he forgets the additional transactions when he's caught out on them.  There's also the part where Kurt apparently had an admin-level account at the underage porn site, a detail he's never bothered reconciling.

That sounds like a trial transcript worth reading in the making, right there, if a good defense attorney gets involved.  A reporter with a history of shady behavior when he isn't outright fabricating shit, and then claims he often flat-out blanks out details of other things.  This may be a tiger Kurt will regret mounting, if the defendant doesn't cave and plead out.


----------



## RG 448 (Mar 20, 2017)

He should testify with a blindfold for his own safety.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 20, 2017)

Cato said:


> Just to clarify, are you are referring to the sending of the tweet or whether it actually triggered a seizure?



The seizure event.  The whole presentation was just way too coy, so was bringing in his "wife" to tweet about it having happened from his account.  It is just far too similar to similar events I've seen where liars "committed suicide" and then had their dad post from their account, or other similar sham events.

I just don't believe it.  It stinks like a week old mackerel.  And nobody but a TV journalist or some other privileged elite would have ever gotten the FBI to go after such bullshit.  If this happened to you or I, absolutely nothing would happen.



Jubileus said:


> Folks are probably acquainted with the part where Eichenwald baldly lies about shit if it'll get his face in front of a camera.  Another fun story takes us back to 2005, when Eichenwald spent $2,000 to purchase a camboy he thought was underage in order to "rescue" him from the trade and make a story about it (he wasn't underage at that point, for the record).  He then proceeded to send even more money (at least another $1100) to the guy and then blamed his "condition" for mental lapses where he forgets the additional transactions when he's caught out on them.  There's also the part where Kurt apparently had an admin-level account at the underage porn site, a detail he's never bothered reconciling.



This is another reason I don't believe it.  The man has a long history as a near-pathological liar whose claims cannot be trusted.



Mrs Paul said:


> If it's not possible to prove he had a seizure, then they still might be able to go with a lesser charge, like attempted assault.  (Maybe.  My knowledge of the law is mostly gleaned from watching "Law & Order", so please don't take that as gospel)



The attempt crime may be what it pleads out to just because the guy actually sent the gif with intent.  It's just convicting him on anything would prove more difficult if he turns out incredibly unsympathetic because of his long history of lying and making shit up.


----------



## Maiden-TieJuan (Mar 20, 2017)

You CAN prove a seizure.  Just go immediately to an ER and have them do an EEG.  I am not saying it would be easy to do, but it IS possible to prove a person has had a seizure.


*While Eichenwald may have been able to do the latter, it's not always possible to "fucking look away or close your eyes", and that indeed a seizure often "hits instantly as soon as you see the first half-second of a flashing GIF."  Did you not read my first two links?  That very thing happened to people who visited the Epilepsy Foundation's website after it was hacked.  As my other link showed, there are various types of epilepsy, and not everyone has the same triggers.*

True.  Even some people who have never had a flashing light triggered seizure can have one.  It happens a lot.  But, as you said above, everyone's Epilepsy is different, and everyone's triggers are different.  It may just be that the timing and colors and intensity of the gif sent to him happened to be his "Perfect Storm" and he had never suffered from one before because everything else didn't have all the exact elements that was needed to push him into seizure.  I just wonder if it was a focal seizure or a grand MAL?  Would it matter, legally speaking, of it was a focal seizure instead of a grand MAL?  Did he have a witness?


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 20, 2017)

Maiden-TieJuan said:


> True.  Even some people who have never had a flashing light triggered seizure can have one.  It happens a lot.  But, as you said above, everyone's Epilepsy is different, and everyone's triggers are different.  It may just be that the timing and colors and intensity of the gif sent to him happened to be his "Perfect Storm" and he had never suffered from one before because everything else didn't have all the exact elements that was needed to push him into seizure.  I just wonder if it was a focal seizure or a grand MAL?  Would it matter, legally speaking, of it was a focal seizure instead of a grand MAL?  Did he have a witness?



Well, presumably, according to the tweets, his wife reported the seizure after it happened, on his own twitter account.  That wasn't just Kurt getting buttmad at being trolled, raging hard, then making up some shit and coming back and typing in some shit as his wife.


----------



## Ruin (Mar 20, 2017)

Cato said:


> A maximum is just that; a maximum. Almost nobody gets sentenced to the maximum allowable by law. That doesn't invalidate the point that maximum sentences should be reasonable, but it's not reasonable to compare a maximum sentence for one offense with actual sentences applied for another.
> 
> Also, referring to this as "being an asshole" is an understatement.



Nope fuck that noise. I deserve to live in a country ruled by reason and common sense, not an emerging police state because the political elites and the prison industrial complex have nothing better to do than frequently and rapidly expand what falls under the umbrella of "crime."


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 20, 2017)

Maiden-TieJuan said:


> *While Eichenwald may have been able to do the latter, it's not always possible to "fucking look away or close your eyes", and that indeed a seizure often "hits instantly as soon as you see the first half-second of a flashing GIF."  Did you not read my first two links?  That very thing happened to people who visited the Epilepsy Foundation's website after it was hacked.  As my other link showed, there are various types of epilepsy, and not everyone has the same triggers.*



And from the recent Chicago Tribune article:  _In 2008, hackers introduced seizure-inducing images onto the website of the Epilepsy Foundation, an organization that provides resources for people with the condition. The group quickly moved to address the vulnerability, and although several users reported headaches and conditions that can be precursors to seizures, none were reported.
_
My, how lucky that Kurt just happened to hit the super lucky trifecta where he actually just instantly got a seizure.  I wonder what the odds are?

Other than nobody having a seizure for the Epilepsy Foundation case, where a whole website full of epilepsy patients were exposed to it, guess what else didn't happen in that case?  An arrest.

But let the same thing happen to someone from the fake news, and how quickly the FBI springs into action!


----------



## Jason Genova (Mar 20, 2017)

Are seizures even that bad? Do they hurt or what?

Putting somebody in jail for making you twitch for a while seems fucked.

I've had bad anger issues, to the point that I have stayed up all night from like 10pm to 7am just thinking about shit people told me that pissed me off, soaking in my own fucking sweat (which only makes my back/shoulder acne even worse).

I still don't advocate jailing whiteknights.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 20, 2017)

Jason Genova said:


> Are seizures even that bad? Do they hurt or what?



They range from just spacing out for a moment or so to something like status epilepticus, where you basically just go into a permanent seizure and die without intervention.  Most injuries are from the involuntary motions rather than direct harm from the seizure.


----------



## Respectable Drunkard (Mar 20, 2017)

Sure, he could mean "I don't dive because I'm no longer allowed to due to my seizure", but everything about his story reeks of bullshit. He still can't get behind the wheel  three months after his instant seizure that was so severe that his wife still had the time to shitpost on twitter about it?


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 20, 2017)

Respectable Drunkard said:


> Sure, he could mean "I don't dive because I'm no longer allowed to due to my seizure", but everything about his story reeks of bullshit. He still can't get behind the wheel  three months after his instant seizure that was so severe that his wife still had the time to shitpost on twitter about it?



Because it's the law.


----------



## Respectable Drunkard (Mar 20, 2017)

I know. I'm probably autistically picking on the phrasing of his "I don't dive" tweet, but he wrote it more than three months after the gif attack and seems to imply more than just not legally not being allowed to drive as he acknowledged that before. At any rate, he's squeezing everything he can out of that supposed seizure.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 20, 2017)

Respectable Drunkard said:


> I know. I'm probably autistically picking on the phrasing of his "I don't dive" tweet, but he wrote it more than three months after the gif attack and seems to imply more than just not legally not being allowed to drive as he acknowledged that before. At any rate, he's squeezing everything he can out of that supposed seizure.



You wonder if he means he just never drives, period (wouldn't surprise me since this guy is autistic as fuck at the best of times) or whether it's supposedly the legal result of a seizure he reported to law enforcement.  The three month period is pretty specific and actually is the state law, though.


----------



## Caesare (Mar 20, 2017)

Jason Genova said:


> Are seizures even that bad? Do they hurt or what?
> 
> Putting somebody in jail for making you twitch for a while seems fucked.
> 
> ...




They are absolutely horrible and can hospitalize you. But this guy didn't get a seizure, he's full of shit. To get the FBI involved because someone insulted you over a tweet is the actions of a severely disturbed individual. You don't ruin someone's life with a charge because they upset you online, that's overly spiteful and childish.



Julius Evola said:


> It should also be noted how Eichenwald figured out who Rivello was. He donated to a charity for epilepsy as a means of apology to Eichenwald following the "attack" and did so in his own name. From that, Eichenwald was somehow able to get a hold of his real name and send in the feds.



If that's the case it makes this scrub even more detestable. Is that how we want to start identifying internet bullies? By the charities they donated to?


----------



## SaltAndGoldMine (Mar 20, 2017)

AngeloTheWizard said:


> Also, if you guys are wondering (Like I was) if he actually does have epilepsy, he does:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/11/magazine/braving-epilepsy-s-storm.html
> 
> The TL;DR of it is that's an article (((Kurt))) has written about his own battles with epilepsy. While I'm not going to stand up and defend this fucker, that image may actually have given him an honest to God seizure.



Given the fact that I, and many others, didn't know that he had epilepsy, I doubt that the guy who posted the .gif was actively trying to give Kurt a seizure.

You could argue he was due to the text on the .gif, but I've seen .gifs with that text before used without actually trying to give someone a seizure.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 20, 2017)

SaltAndGoldMine said:


> Given the fact that I, and many others, didn't know that he had epilepsy, I doubt that the guy who posted the .gif was actively trying to give Kurt a seizure.



He said he was trying to.  That was where he dun goofed.


----------



## SaltAndGoldMine (Mar 20, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> He said he was trying to.  That was where he dun goofed.



Then I take it back.  Thanks for telling me.

Then he's only got two things going for him - he's honest and he dislikes Kurt.


----------



## Very Honest Content (Mar 20, 2017)

The fact that dumbass suffered troll's remorse and tried to virtue signal under his real name his guilt away being the reason why he was busted violating kiwifarms rule #1 and will end up getting him into the system is delicious, delicious irony.

Blaming the victim or the system for enforcing laws on the books that were violated with proof provided by the statement of the offending party is missing the forest it appears to me.  Either it's a nation of laws or a nation of men.  I'll take the laws, including the one that says I'm not allowed to use twitter to injure people, over the latter everyday.


----------



## Maiden-TieJuan (Mar 20, 2017)

Very Honest Content said:


> Blaming the victim or the system for enforcing laws on the books that were violated with proof provided by the statement of the offending party is missing the forest it appears to me.  Either it's a nation of laws or a nation of men.  I'll take the laws, including the one that says I'm not allowed to use twitter to injure people, over the latter everyday.



Not quite.  Mainly we are bitching and moaning about how if it was a NORMAL everyday Joe Schmoe that this happened to there would have been a few raised eyebrows and a "Well, you looked at it." Attitude from the cops.  The FBI wouldn't have even answered the call for it.  But since it is a journalist, and an asshat journalist at that, suddenly it is a HORRIBLECRIME!!!1! and the FBI is all up in this shit.

I object to the situation and favoritism, not the crime it's self.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 20, 2017)

Maiden-TieJuan said:


> Not quite.  Mainly we are bitching and moaning about how if it was a NORMAL everyday Joe Schmoe that this happened to there would have been a few raised eyebrows and a "Well, you looked at it." Attitude from the cops.  The FBI wouldn't have even answered the call for it.  But since it is a journalist, and an asshat journalist at that, suddenly it is a HORRIBLECRIME!!!1! and the FBI is all up in this shit.
> 
> I object to the situation and favoritism, not the crime it's self.



In a perfect world, this guy would cop some plea for having attempted to do this thing, but then Eichenwald would get caught fucking lying, which I'm virtually sure he is, and get locked up for that himself.


----------



## Maiden-TieJuan (Mar 20, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> In a perfect world, this guy would cop some plea for having attempted to do this thing, but then Eichenwald would get caught fucking lying, which I'm virtually sure he is, and get locked up for that himself.


Seriously, if Eichenwald gets his license back after 3 months, I am gonna plotz.  The last time my license was pulled, it was 6 months seizure free AND a light test by my doctor (flashing lights set at the same speed as a CalTrans flasher) in his office before he signed the medical release.  Eichenwald wants us to pity his ass, but those of us with REAL Epilepsy could care less.  He runs the same risk of accidentally triggering his Epilepsy walking thru a Circuit City or Best Buy.


----------



## Anonymus Fluhre (Mar 20, 2017)

Don't you have to actually have to press play or some shit now to see a gif on Twitter? Wouldn't he have to press play knowing it said it would give him epileptic seizure? The other mans lawyer if he's good, has an easy case.


----------



## Larry Thorne (Mar 21, 2017)

If only there was a way for him to get a seizure every time he looks at child porn.


----------



## CatParty (Mar 21, 2017)




----------



## Larry Thorne (Mar 21, 2017)

EVERYBODY FREEZE, I GOT A TWEET.

NOBODY MOVE OR SOMEONES GONNA GET TRIGGERED.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 21, 2017)

Now it's a hate crime?  Where did the defendant even mention the guy is a Jew?


----------



## millais (Mar 21, 2017)

He had an antisemitic Twitter username, ergo every action he commits on that platform is a hate crime


----------



## NIGGO KILLA (Mar 21, 2017)

I hate to sounds like an idiot here but hes not faking it? He falsify court documents to bluff us?


----------



## Ruin (Mar 21, 2017)

You can get charged for committing assault hate crimes via animated gif over the interwebz. 

We deserve to be conquered by Islams.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 21, 2017)

millais said:


> He had an antisemitic Twitter username, ergo every action he commits on that platform is a hate crime



How is "Meme Magic Mike" anti-Semitic?



NIGGO KILLA said:


> I hate to sounds like an idiot here but hes not faking it? He falsify court documents to bluff us?



I heard his lawyer on NPR.  It was someone legitimate, although I forget his name (he'll probably be in other stories today).  The guy has also actually been arrested, apparently.

The general legal theory is sound.  If you know someone has epilepsy and deliberately trigger an attack with the attempt to cause them physical harm or kill them, you can be prosecuted for that.

I remain skeptical of the actual factual basis of the seizure claim, though, based on this sniveling little bastard's fairly lengthy history of dishonesty, and elaborate ruses related to extreme acts of journalistic lack of ethics, i.e. the time he literally paid an underage camwhore repeatedly then lied about it, as part of "research" for a story on child porn.  Arguably, he was directly involved in the manufacture of CP.

The guy really does deserve a seizure, as his alleged assailant said.  It's legal to say that, as this very lawyer on NPR said.  It's not legal to say that and at the same time send a strobing GIF intending to cause the seizure.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Mar 24, 2017)

Wait, the guy actually possessed child porn?    Like actual child porn, not just some "barely legal" crap?  



Jason Genova said:


> Are seizures even that bad? Do they hurt or what?
> 
> Putting somebody in jail for making you twitch for a while seems fucked.
> 
> ...



Indeed they do.  The focal ones make your thoughts feel like a bunch of gibberish, and you get that pins and needles feeling all over.  You hyperventilate, there are weird smells, and you usually end up really dizzy and panicky.  You can't see because you have visual auras, similiar to a migraine.  Once I had a few and was unable to talk the rest of the day -- all I could do was stutter.

The big ones are bad.  I don't remember what happens to me exactly when I have one, but I know I wake up with a headache that makes me want to cut my head off, my mouth all bitten up and bleeding, and no knowledge of what just happened.  Then for a few days you'll be somewhat confused and sluggish.  I've puked on occassion, some people will out right piss themselves.  They ain't fun. 
Now, fortunately, I'm not bothered by flashing lights -- I've been to laser shows, I can be around strobe lights etc.  I have other triggers, none of which I feel like going into here. 

(Sorry for the power-leveling.  I'm just trying to answer a question.  Carry on)


----------



## m0rnutz (Mar 24, 2017)

I'm playing devil's advocate for a second. Don't Facebook, Twitter, and all social media sites excluding microblogging entities have some form of a toggle setting to prevent autoplaying gifs, webms, and videos?

Don't you think at this point in time, with how we can actually run them by scrolling, an epileptic would disable this feature?


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 24, 2017)

Mrs Paul said:


> Wait, the guy actually possessed child porn?    Like actual child porn, not just some "barely legal" crap?



I don't know what he possessed, just that he paid money on repeated occasions to a camboy who purported to produce and distribute child pornography in return for being a journalistic source.

I also forgot what he used as an excuse for "forgetting" to disclose these payments when he was asked about it.

If you guessed he blamed it on his seizure disorder, you'd be right.  It's sort of his go-to lie for anything.


----------

