Right. That's not going to be hard. He's being charged with cyberstalking, but just for factual reference, this is from the DOJ:
"Evidence received pursuant to a search warrant showed Rivello’s Twitter account contained direct messages from Rivello’s account to other Twitter users concerning the victim. Among those direct messages included statements by Rivello, including “I hope this sends him into a seizure,” “Spammed this at [victim] let’s see if he dies,” and “I know he has epilepsy.” Additional evidence received pursuant to a search warrant showed Rivello’s iCloud account contained a screenshot of a Wikipedia page for the victim, which had been altered to show a fake obituary with the date of death listed as Dec. 16, 2016. Rivello’s iCloud account also contained screen shots from epilepsy.com with a list of commonly reported epilepsy seizure triggers and from dallasobserver.com discussing the victim’s report to the Dallas Police Department and his attempt to identify the Twitter user."
So yeah. When you've got someone stating "I hope this gives him a seizure," "Let's see if he dies," altering his Wikipedia page to show a death date and obit, and looking up information on the kinds of seizures that cause death, you haven't exactly established a strong defense for how this should be treated anything less than extremely seriously. This isn't a prank. It was a deliberate attempt to injure or kill someone.
Do you know how many epileptics die as a result of seizures every year in the US alone? Roughly 50,000. Provoking a seizure in an epileptic is not a fucking joke.
Our study abroad administrator didn't understand how email worked, didn't know how email *lists* worked, and didn't know you could suppress the email field via BCC.
She hand-typed the email address of every single student into a standard CC email field at a time when we only had something like 300KB of space for our *entire* email. The header alone was larger than that, given that we had over 2000 students. And *that* was before the "Reply-Alls" started rolling in. You could still send mail with your email storage full, it just wouldn't save the outgoing message, so the entire server filled up in minutes. Response time went through the floor. It took IT all afternoon to sort the whole thing out.
And then, two days later, she did it again.
Experience isn't physical, yet it's something you can buy. When you purchase a game, beat it, and then return it after spending dozens or hundreds of hours playing the title, you've enriched yourself with that experience -- an experience you wouldn't have had otherwise.
You may not be returning something physical, but our concept of property isn't solely tied to physicality. That's why intellectual property is a thing. Now, I suppose if you're fundamentally against the existence of IP you can argue that theft doesn't exist -- but I find this a limited definition that doesn't really match reality. If playing a prerecorded song for hundreds of people at an event can count as infringement (and it does) despite the fact that nothing physical has been stolen or removed, then clearly property has more than a physical component.
But I can't take any "conservative" website seriously when these people -- who used to champion ideas like small government and personal freedom -- are lining up to vilify the man who did more to tell us about how the US government and its partners spy on their own citizens than anyone else ever has.
I can understand people who argue that Snowden should be tried in a court of law and punished for his actions. I may not *agree* with them, but I can at least understand it. But the idea that we should ignore the entire question of government overreach? I don't think that's something that ought to be swept aside -- and once upon a time, 20-30 years ago, I would've expected the GOP to be loud critics of this kind of surveillance.
How times change.
"Maybe according to the Newspeak Wordsbook of the SJW, but not according to a real dictionary"
Let's test that theory.
Dictionary.com says that gender is: "either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior" while sex is: "either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions."
Let's try the Oxford English dictionary.
Gender: "The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way."
Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
All emphasis my own.
So, no. You're just wrong about this, and if you're going to pedantically claim that the dictionary supports you, you ought to be arsed to check your dictionary first. The dictionary supports the modern distinction of gender and sex.
"The Avis WIZARD decides if you get to drive a car. Your head won't touch the pillow of a Sheraton unless their computer says it's okay." -- Arthur Miller