[twblalock]

> I'm saying that unless they have a confession from the defendant that he was trying to kill this guy, or his diary dictating that, which they should include in the story were that the case, then this is just stupid.

If that was the standard for a criminal prosecution, we'd rarely convict anyone.

> The presidence this case might set forth is terrifying. It provides a never before seen limitless weaponization of the justice system, which will be abused by those without morals, those who have a lot to lose, and those with more $ to attack anyone they like.

The fact that assault is a crime has been established many, many years ago.

[69mlgsniperdad]

Every response is karma suicide, however, I am obviously referring to this exact specific case.. One would traditionally assume that posting a gif is not a crime, no matter the gif (with a few exceptions in the law such as certain types of pornography), in THIS case, the person I am responding to claims it is a crime because of the intent. And the precedent I am discussing is apparently whether or not posting a 'gif' image is assault, regardless of intent, which you are implying this case would claim. Please see my other comment, the one(and the paragraph) talking about 'kittens'. Explain to me the difference between this specific case and that one? How about those gifs which tell you to stare at the optical illusion, and after an arbitrary amount of time, show a terrifying skeleton. Is it a crime to post that without sufficient warning?(assuming it hurts someone psychologically - please apply this assumption to all of the following hypotheticals) Those would never 'go viral' if they contained warnings, obviously, and could be extremely and permanently damaging to certain people with relevant psychological conditions. If it isn't a crime to share those images, is it a crime to post them on an anxiety subreddit? If not, is it a crime to post them on an anxiety subreddit, with intention to trigger panic attacks, or similar, in their users? Is it a crime to email those to a person who enjoys optical illusions, has severe panic disorder and ptsd, and several heart conditions? how about with the intent to kill them? Does intent dictate criminality here? If not, what makes it criminal? Number of people affected by a given condition? Please continue down-voting each of my replies(so I am discouraged from proving my argument) and assume whatever titles are associated with that sort of behavior. Edit: Also worth noting that getting convicted is mostly irrelevant to my argument. I am trying to bring attention to the burden this sort of thing could put on a legal system, especially if it was 'weaponized,' as well as the burden of legal fees, time, and negative publicity, false claims like these would have on the defendant.

[dang]

It looks to me like you're being downvoted because you're overposting and your comments are impossible to make sense of. Please stop.

[alphabettsy]

Criminal intent is one of the most important parts of law. If there is no criminal intent in many cases there is no crime.

If you want to have a discussion, take some time to clearly articulate your arguments because it's hard to read. I think that's what's getting voted down, not necessarily that everyone disagrees with you.

[jackvalentine]

> Does intent dictate criminality here?

Yes.

> Is it a crime to email those to a person who enjoys optical illusions, has severe panic disorder and ptsd, and several heart conditions?

Maybe, it depends. In any case if your intent was pure but you're just stupid the case brought against you in the event of a mishap would be one of negligence.