The court drew out an analogy that it's similar to blinding someone with a laser to get by the physical touching element. I don't disagree with them either. If you know someone is epileptic and...
The court drew out an analogy that it's similar to blinding someone with a laser to get by the physical touching element. I don't disagree with them either. If you know someone is epileptic and send them images with the intent of causing them to have a seizure, that's definitely a tortious act.
Goldman points out in his comment that the court is a little ham-fisted with their reasoning though. They talk about light emitting from the computer to be physical touching. Following that logic, @deimos has touched us all right in the face.
It's hard to argue that it wasn't assault. There was an intention to and realistic expectation of harm. Is there a legal term for situations where technology has made older legal wording insufficient?
It's hard to argue that it wasn't assault. There was an intention to and realistic expectation of harm.
Is there a legal term for situations where technology has made older legal wording insufficient?
The court drew out an analogy that it's similar to blinding someone with a laser to get by the physical touching element. I don't disagree with them either. If you know someone is epileptic and send them images with the intent of causing them to have a seizure, that's definitely a tortious act.
Goldman points out in his comment that the court is a little ham-fisted with their reasoning though. They talk about light emitting from the computer to be physical touching. Following that logic, @deimos has touched us all right in the face.
It's hard to argue that it wasn't assault. There was an intention to and realistic expectation of harm.
Is there a legal term for situations where technology has made older legal wording insufficient?