Deadliest Weapon Of Them All: Twitter

He did. He also knew the man was a pathological liar who fabricates stories about people with zero evidence. Also that he got away with purchasing child pornography for "research purposes". This case has multiple layers to it. Like the fact they have not produced any evidence that a seizure actually occurred. And he was allegedly suffering traumatic effects from the seizure for weeks afterwards, even though he was on national television about three days afterwards and was fine.

This is too stupid to even remotely care about. But, (again, too lazy to look it up) why exactly was the victim on national t.v.? If it was about this case, that just further encourages me to stay away from watching t.v.. (Haven't had t.v. in over 1yr.) This is not "breaking news" or even remotely important news. It's just stupid people being stupid and having "click bait", if you will, news. "have not produced any evidence that a seizure actually occurred" "And he was allegedly suffering traumatic effects from the seizure for weeks afterwards"...Again, why care or even find this anything other than a little humorous? I'd be more interested in the possession of child pornography allegations than anything else and why there was nothing done if they were clearly done for illegal purposes (As if there are any other legit reasons, aside from evidence in an investigation.). I wouldn't call this "serious discussion " worthy, but keep up the good work.;)

He was on TV because he was a journalist. And are you honestly going to tell me even a third of the topics in serious are actually serious topics? As far as I'm concerned serious is for topics of real life things.

Never said even 90% were/are serious. So no, that's not what I'm telling you. Back on topic, "He was a journalist"... And that's what makes his story news worthy? Again, this just makes me question media even more is all. I suppose it's just a case of entertaining stories bring in viewers. I suppose it's mildly interesting if only from the standpoint of questioning whether someone should be charged for a crime because they've said or did something online that may have some how caused a negative reaction by another (Suicide or in this case, triggering a medical condition. ).

What makes this interesting is that they are attempting to set a precedent that tweets and online messages of the sorts can be the new "sending anthrax in an envelope".

I know it's not exactly on the topic but dude you can end your career, job or social reputation or someone else's with posting some dumb shit on twitter lol youtubers, celebs, politicians. nobody is safe. most employers now check your social media before they consider you as a potential hire.