The victim not taking the appropriate steps to avoid something harmful to them is never, ever a defense in assault cases. It's not as if we punish muggers less severely if they mugged someone in a bad neighborhood where the victim shouldn't have been walking.

Even if the person here hadn't known that Eichenwald had epilepsy, they could still be charged, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull. So the fact that they did know and intentionally caused an attack is certainly punishable.

It doesn't matter what steps you take. If you leave all your doors unlocked and your windows open and tell the world you have $1 million in cash inside, it's still a crime to rob you.

What if I send you baked goods with peanuts in them without telling you, knowing it might kill you?

> Like, if I'm severely allergic to peanuts, then I take reasonable steps to avoid them, such as not patronizing a restaurant that uses peanuts in its food.

What if someone made you a sandwich and didn't tell you there were peanuts in it with the intent of causing a reaction? Eating the sandwich could have been avoided, but you wouldn't know that until you took a bite.

This should clearly be a criminal offense. I do not think someone should be held responsible if they post seizure inducing GIFs with no ill intent, but this guy @ replied the journalist so it showed up on his Twitter feed, with a message accompanying the gif saying that he deserved a seizure.

The key here is intent to cause harm.