4 ms·
There's an extent to which the proliferation of emojis reflects people's inability or unwillingness to put in the effort of using words to express things, as yo
by siegel 9y ago
There's an extent to which the proliferation of emojis reflects people's inability or unwillingness to put in the effort of using words to express things, as you state. But the written expression is vital from a legal perspective.
For example, contracts are a necessary part of our economic system. And there is an importance (and often a necessity) for contracts to be in writing. As people begin more and more to rely on emojis to express ideas, in lieu of words, there is no reason to believe that we are far away from emojis making their way into contracts.
So, as absurd as it may seem right now to give such deference to emojis as to write legal articles about this, perhaps it's really necessary...
- derefr 9y agoI would put less strength into the belief that there will be emojis in contracts, and more into the belief that there will be emojis in text entered into evidence in criminal cases, which must be interpreted for their intent to gauge mens rea or what-have-you.
- bdowling 9y agoThere may not be emojis in formal contract documents, but an offer sent by a text message followed by a reply of the thumbs up emoji could be viewed as acceptance and legally bind both parties to the deal.
- siegel 9y agoWhy wouldn't it, unless there were something categorical about emojis that would legally be deemed to not be able to give rise to binding acceptance?
- siegel 9y agoGiven that emojis are used to express someone's thoughts/feelings, I can see why it would have value of evidence of intent. Why not?