4 ms·

I would hope any case where the emoji is described rather than shown to a jury would be tossed as a mistrial. Could you imagine the court describing video evide

I would hope any case where the emoji is described rather than shown to a jury would be tossed as a mistrial. Could you imagine the court describing video evidence instead of allowing the jury to review it? And yes, what to show for the emoji? Which platform's rendering? What about reactions to the message that can be added in some apps? All in all I weigh emojis very little compared to other possible evidence considering how convoluted this all is. And of course sending someone a knife emoji is not a threat. A threat requires specifics.

dpflan 7y ago
Valid point about the rendering: I wonder how often Emoji cross-platform rendering causes confusion. (then such confusion leads to something that is presented in court). > https://emojipedia.org/ https://emojipedia.org/
- ialwaysforgetm 7y ago
  For example, there's the gun emoji which can either be a water/toy/alien pistol (which could be interpreted as fun for some) or a real gun (which a different group would find fun). I know right now it's probably a toy gun everywhere, but it's a relevant example.
- warent 7y ago
  I feel like we're overthinking this. Why not just present the court with renderings that would have been used in all devices in question?
  - cryptoz 7y ago
    I think that's underthinking the issue. It's not just about individual court cases, it's about the dramatic and rapid influence that corporations exert on human-to-human language use. Emoji designs are for-profit investments made by corporations and they are not like normal language. Corporations are making these emoji and people are using them to communicate. The meanings are ambiguous, never taught in school, tied to profit motives of domestic or foreign corporations, and liable to change at a moment's notice without all parties receiving the same change. It's a mess for future of society and communication, and that it's showing up in court cases with confusion already is a leading indicator that the problems will get worse.
  - dx87 7y ago
    It could still raise the question of whether the sender knew how their emoji would be rendered on the receivers screen. Did the sender know that their water gun would get rendered as a real gun, causing the receiver to feel threatened, or did they assume it would also be a water gun to the receiver, giving off a playful vibe.
  - aaron695 7y ago
    > Why not just present the court with renderings that would have been used in all devices in question? How? You'd need a very expensive lab that keeps all phones and apps and records updates at times to work out what looks like when. Assuming you also can forensically see when the owner updates their phone and know the apps they are using and if they jail broke it and what country it's from. Common sense is take a best guess, if both sides can't agree get them to prove/argue their side if they think it matters using experts and let the jury decide. Basically the system we currently have. Transcripts of witness are pretty inaccurate, on top of what they actually said being inaccurate. Been here before.
- dx87 7y ago
  I could definitely see the gun emoji mentioned in the article causing issues in a court case. For example, if two people get in an argument, and one person thinks they are sending a playful water gun emoji, but the other person receives a real gun emoji. The person receiving the "real gun" emoji might feel threatened, even though the sender thought they were being playful. It's like when you frustrate your spouse and they say they're going to kill you; context matters, and some device vendors silently change the context for political reasons.
  - levythe 7y ago
    IANAL, but in my opinion, a gun emoji is not a threat in any isolated context. There would need to be enough other context before I would consider it a threat that the emoji would be irrelevant compared with the other evidence.
marcosdumay 7y ago
Well, at least they have a standard description. There are worse things to omit. If the visual of the emoji is relevant, the defense can always fix it by showing it to the jury.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Courts still want everything written out as if it had to be read to a blind a blind person, which is why it's unusual to see legal briefs even use bullet points but instead a) make the b) same points inline although this is c) much harder to read. In general most legal writing and procedure is overwrought and obscurantist, not least to serve as a moat between the profession and the public. While I enjoy reading complex arguments and legal witticisms, such archaisms really do a disservice to the public. Many legal documents could be 2/3 the length and far more accessible without any sacrifice of accuracy or depth.

dpflan 7y ago

Valid point about the rendering: I wonder how often Emoji cross-platform rendering causes confusion. (then such confusion leads to something that is presented in court). > https://emojipedia.org/ https://emojipedia.org/

ialwaysforgetm 7y ago
For example, there's the gun emoji which can either be a water/toy/alien pistol (which could be interpreted as fun for some) or a real gun (which a different group would find fun). I know right now it's probably a toy gun everywhere, but it's a relevant example.
warent 7y ago
I feel like we're overthinking this. Why not just present the court with renderings that would have been used in all devices in question?
- cryptoz 7y ago
  I think that's underthinking the issue. It's not just about individual court cases, it's about the dramatic and rapid influence that corporations exert on human-to-human language use. Emoji designs are for-profit investments made by corporations and they are not like normal language. Corporations are making these emoji and people are using them to communicate. The meanings are ambiguous, never taught in school, tied to profit motives of domestic or foreign corporations, and liable to change at a moment's notice without all parties receiving the same change. It's a mess for future of society and communication, and that it's showing up in court cases with confusion already is a leading indicator that the problems will get worse.
- dx87 7y ago
  It could still raise the question of whether the sender knew how their emoji would be rendered on the receivers screen. Did the sender know that their water gun would get rendered as a real gun, causing the receiver to feel threatened, or did they assume it would also be a water gun to the receiver, giving off a playful vibe.
- aaron695 7y ago
  > Why not just present the court with renderings that would have been used in all devices in question? How? You'd need a very expensive lab that keeps all phones and apps and records updates at times to work out what looks like when. Assuming you also can forensically see when the owner updates their phone and know the apps they are using and if they jail broke it and what country it's from. Common sense is take a best guess, if both sides can't agree get them to prove/argue their side if they think it matters using experts and let the jury decide. Basically the system we currently have. Transcripts of witness are pretty inaccurate, on top of what they actually said being inaccurate. Been here before.
dx87 7y ago
I could definitely see the gun emoji mentioned in the article causing issues in a court case. For example, if two people get in an argument, and one person thinks they are sending a playful water gun emoji, but the other person receives a real gun emoji. The person receiving the "real gun" emoji might feel threatened, even though the sender thought they were being playful. It's like when you frustrate your spouse and they say they're going to kill you; context matters, and some device vendors silently change the context for political reasons.
- levythe 7y ago
  IANAL, but in my opinion, a gun emoji is not a threat in any isolated context. There would need to be enough other context before I would consider it a threat that the emoji would be irrelevant compared with the other evidence.

marcosdumay 7y ago

Well, at least they have a standard description. There are worse things to omit. If the visual of the emoji is relevant, the defense can always fix it by showing it to the jury.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Courts still want everything written out as if it had to be read to a blind a blind person, which is why it's unusual to see legal briefs even use bullet points but instead a) make the b) same points inline although this is c) much harder to read. In general most legal writing and procedure is overwrought and obscurantist, not least to serve as a moat between the profession and the public. While I enjoy reading complex arguments and legal witticisms, such archaisms really do a disservice to the public. Many legal documents could be 2/3 the length and far more accessible without any sacrifice of accuracy or depth.