US Grand Jury Rules That A GIF Can Be Considered A Weapon
Kurt Eichenwald is a journalist who has written about having epilepsy in his articles. Eichenwald also happens to be Jewish. It’s speculated that is what led John Rayne Rivello to send Eichenwald a series of tweets and messages containing a GIF that was intended to cause a seizure in Eichenwald. One eventually did, and now a Texas Grand Jury has ruled the GIF a deadly weapon in it’s indictment of Rivello. The indictment finds no difference between the intent in which the GIF was used and someone firing a gun at someone. Rivello’s attorney’s have argued that a GIF is covered under the First Amendment, however the tweets in question show intent as argued by the prosecution. The trial will continue in Texas.
i like how all the news sites are scrambling to put up articles about that kurt eichenwald debacle along the lines of “NEWSWEEK WRITER READS TENTACLE HENTAI” when that isn’t even what happened, and “NEWSWEEK WRITER READS FAIRLY VANILLA BIG-TITTY HENTAI THEN ATTEMPTS TO COVER IT UP BY SAYING THAT HE WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE HIS WIFE THAT TENTACLE HENTAI EXISTS” is so much funnier
Put a pin in this, it’s the first time, the first time a nationally known figure, in a media outfit has taken this stand. In reform efforts one side often fights for common sense reforms, minor changes for years, some times they get what they want, some times they’re frustrated by the other side, but there comes a point where the reform side throws down the gauntlet. Is this the moment? I don’t know, but I have to agree with Eichenwald here, if we’re going to be accused of stilling guns no matter how common sense and minor our reforms are, we may as well do something that really will save lives.
Wealthy folk need to stop whining about ‘class warfare.’ Rich people having their heads impaled on pikes and marched through the town square is class warfare; paying three cents more in taxes on every dollar earned over $250,000 a year is not.
It is obscene that our society thinks it has the right to dictate whether consenting adults can lawfully marry. The question should not be how the Supreme Court will rule on whether gays have the right to wed; the true issue, the true measure of our hard-heartedness and hypocrisy, is that this has been placed before a court at all. Politicians, judges, voters, you, me—none of us has the moral right to decide which adult should love whom when there is no true societal interest. Most living Americans—including me—owe a collective apology that it took us decades to recognize the indecency of blithely ignoring the desire of loving gay couples to marry and our continuing belief that we should have any input into this.
…seeks to provide a global account of the period after 9/11, leaping from a prison cell in Syria to the nightclub bombing in Bali, but it’s best and most informative when depicting how the Bush administration, and especially its lawyers, suffered a protracted nervous breakdown during that time.
Yup. I’m glad it’s getting some attention since it involved Eichenwald, but this shit has been going on forever, and honestly is exactly the same as any other cyberbullying – the physical effects are just more tangible, and the justice system takes them (slightly) more seriously.