[jacquesm]

> Convicting a person who allegedly posted an image on the internet, with intent to trigger a sizeure in another, sets the precident for every means of distribution of a similar image that I listed off to be treated as attempted murder or whatever charges come of this.

You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of 'intent' in criminal law. This was a message targeted at an individual with specific intent to cause seizures. All your hypotheticals have no basis in fact.

> Name one thing in my wall of text that is not an implication of this story;

Every one of them?

> Unless you are implying this article is on hackernews, only to foster discussion of the technical aspects of a subpoena of personal information?

No, it is on HN because enough people found it interesting to warrant discussion of this actual case. Fantasy need not enter the discussion unless it bears some connection to reality, making stuff up out of whole cloth is not going to further the discussion in a meaningful way, no matter how long you make your walls of text.