5 ms·

Emoji are legally actionable

43 points by chrisaycock 3y ago

Baldbvrhunter 3y ago
How am I supposed to know how emoji's are rendered on your device. What if my water pistol turns into a pistol by the time you see it and my harmless fun turns into a threat? https://money.cnn.com/2016/08/01/technology/apple-pistol-emoji/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2016/08/01/technology/apple-pistol-emo...
- mgraczyk 3y ago
  Fortunately the legal system is flexible enough to accommodate questions like this, both with interpretations of the law and with juries to determine the facts. This isn't a new problem caused by emoji. You could make a similar argument about conversations had over the phone, turn signals, even physical contact.
  - foobiekr 3y ago
    Yeah. It's amazing that people in technology so often are unable to comprehend that the legal system is not a bunch of statements where debating the meaning of words or symbols or obscure things like rendering somehow are magic to bypass the law's intent. The simple answer is, it's not "what it looked like to the other person" it's the intent of the author.
    - mgraczyk 3y ago
      A nitpick, but for your latter point it depends on the question. In some cases it's the intent that matters, but the law often tries to avoid questions about actual intent because that's too difficult to figure out. Instead the question might hinge on what a reasonable person would have thought, or what the victim actually thought.
      - prepend 3y ago
        > often tries to avoid questions about actual intent because that's too difficult to figure out. Of course the law tries to avoid it. But that’s sometimes impossible, thus disagreements and trials and judges and whatnot. It’s not like ambiguity causes everything to crash. It just requires judgement that usually gets settled before it gets to court.
    - konschubert 3y ago
      Yep. What Color are your bits.
    - stickfigure 3y ago
      You have an optimistic view of the legal system. Sure intent matters, but you may still get arrested, spend many nights in jail, get fired from your job, and spend thousands of dollars on legal fees and bail while the system figures out your intent.
      - fnordpiglet 3y ago
        I’d note in America many nights can easily mean many years in jail without a trial.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        doubleg72 3y ago
        South America maybe?
    - nicup12345689 3y ago
      Only anglo-tard, 'guess the intent' legal systems. "Is he a person having bad thoughts?"
- staticman2 3y ago
  If you were accused of using a pistol emoji you or your lawyer would present evidence that it was a water gun on your device.
- throwaway8877 3y ago
  But what if you knew that your water pistol is rendered as a gun
  - ohdannyboy 3y ago
    The prosecutor would argue it at trial and a jury would decide if the argument is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.
- clearleaf 3y ago
  On the article, the "side-eyed-moon" doesn't look like a side eyed moon to me. It looks like a normal smiley face.
  - o11c 3y ago
    Same here. Firefox on Linux; not sure what extra font packages I've installed at various times.
- kistaro 3y ago
  Even worse, sending a friendly affectionate yellow heart -- how was I supposed to know the recipient was using [Android 4.42](https://thenextweb.com/news/pink-hairy-hart-emoji https://thenextweb.com/news/pink-hairy-hart-emoji)?
neonate 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20231230141637/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/12/emoji-corporate-lawsuits-court/676967/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231230141637/https://www.theat... https://archive.ph/Sm6Ym https://archive.ph/Sm6Ym
User23 3y ago
It’s fascinating living in a country whose legal system treats vowing before God to stay with someone exclusives until death as absolutely meaningless but will treat a smiley face picture as a legally binding statement.
- stonogo 3y ago
  Marriage doesn't have to involve God, and securities fraud doesn't require "legally binding statements" to execute. Once you take away the hyperbole, there's not much left to examine here, except to ask what is fascinating about it.
- gumby 3y ago
  Why, because it’s rational? A visual expression can be produced in court. A verbal promise is binding n some US jurisdictions (e.g. California) but hard to litigate when you can’t subpoena the witness. Also in a contractual matter (such as marriage), if the “exchange of value” or guarantor is entirely mythical how can such an agreement be binding? It’s not like the injured party can collect from the guarantor. That’s why some contracts require a payment of a dollar (e.g. patent assignment to your company) so it can be “for value received”. Now if you’re a cryptoweenie I suppose you’d say that the “fiat dollar” is just as mythical…good luck litigating that.
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  Oh boy lots to unpack! * If we subscribe to principle that "legal system impacting everyone equally" and "personal religious beliefs" should be separate (and I do!:), then "vowing before God to stay with someone" should indeed be "legally absolutely meaningless", unless you also enter in a bespoke legal contract, understood by both parties to be such, with details on what happens when two parties want to terminate the contract, jointly or individually. Basically, if you want to talk "legal contract", let's talk legal contracts, which are rarely truly inescapable and have well established means of binding and exit. If you want to talk divine commitments, by all means, but that's really between you and your divine being of choice, and it is my understanding that most divine systems handle such cases appropriately (whether by eternal damnation or multiples of readily-available virgins, et cetera:). Just, let's not mix them up to make some vague points. * "Smiley Picture" and "funny written scribble" (a signature) have similarities. We readily in most legal systems accept "if I use a funny written scribble to really really mean something, no take-baksies!", then what's the real difference to smiley picture? * Or put it another way, what are the first principle under which a signature should count for something, or a written expression, that a emoji, used to convey same meaning, should not? I.e. if I ask "will you deliver to this contract", and you text back "Yup!" or thumbs up emoji, what is the difference? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/thumbs-up-emoji-costs-sask-farmer-82-thousand-1.6898686 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/thumbs-up-emoji-...
tahoeskibum 3y ago
Just replace "emoji" which has low brow connotations, with "pictographic symbol language". Then, everything will make sense.
zharknado 3y ago
This example is particularly salient because one point of evidence is a single emoji in a tweet: <full moon face emoji> This is a bit analogous to the “Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” idea, in that by default my intuition would be that conveying a single word or symbol couldn’t possibly be weighty enough to constitute a crime on its own, but in certain contexts, it probably can.
- gunapologist99 3y ago
  Speech has to incite "imminent lawless action" to be illegal. Brandenburg v Ohio
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    And it has to be intended to do so.
dcan 3y ago
Emojis are contract law in Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/thumbs-up-emoji-costs-sask-farmer-82-thousand-1.6898686 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/thumbs-up-emoji-...
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  I find the results of that famous case completely insane. A "thumbs up" emoji doesn't always mean "I read the contract and I herby sign it", it's often a lazy answer for "I read your last message with your request and will tend to it when I have the time and will get back to you later with my final answer".
  - Majromax 3y ago
    > I find the results of that famous case completely insane. A "thumbs up" emoji doesn't always mean [...] I invite you to read the decision itself (https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skkb/doc/2023/2023skkb116/2023skkb116.html https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skkb/doc/2023/2023skkb116/2023s...), rather than rely on mass-media summaries. In this case, the court does not in fact decide that a thumbs-up emoji always means something. Instead, it considers the parties' histories to note that prior contracts between them were often approved with a simple 'ok,' 'yup', or 'looks good'. The parties did not have a history of initially confirming receipt of a proposed contract and then later negotiating terms or having a separate signing. In that very specific context, the court found that thumbs-up emoji was a short approval much like 'yup'; see paragraphs 21 and 34-36 of the decision.
antisthenes 3y ago
If Emojis are legally actionable, then is "in Minecraft" a legally valid defense?
- lieuwex 3y ago
  no

43 points by chrisaycock 3y ago

How am I supposed to know how emoji's are rendered on your device. What if my water pistol turns into a pistol by the time you see it and my harmless fun turns into a threat? https://money.cnn.com/2016/08/01/technology/apple-pistol-emoji/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2016/08/01/technology/apple-pistol-emo...

mgraczyk 3y ago
Fortunately the legal system is flexible enough to accommodate questions like this, both with interpretations of the law and with juries to determine the facts. This isn't a new problem caused by emoji. You could make a similar argument about conversations had over the phone, turn signals, even physical contact.
- foobiekr 3y ago
  Yeah. It's amazing that people in technology so often are unable to comprehend that the legal system is not a bunch of statements where debating the meaning of words or symbols or obscure things like rendering somehow are magic to bypass the law's intent. The simple answer is, it's not "what it looked like to the other person" it's the intent of the author.
  - mgraczyk 3y ago
    A nitpick, but for your latter point it depends on the question. In some cases it's the intent that matters, but the law often tries to avoid questions about actual intent because that's too difficult to figure out. Instead the question might hinge on what a reasonable person would have thought, or what the victim actually thought.
    - prepend 3y ago
      > often tries to avoid questions about actual intent because that's too difficult to figure out. Of course the law tries to avoid it. But that’s sometimes impossible, thus disagreements and trials and judges and whatnot. It’s not like ambiguity causes everything to crash. It just requires judgement that usually gets settled before it gets to court.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    Yep. What Color are your bits.
  - stickfigure 3y ago
    You have an optimistic view of the legal system. Sure intent matters, but you may still get arrested, spend many nights in jail, get fired from your job, and spend thousands of dollars on legal fees and bail while the system figures out your intent.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      I’d note in America many nights can easily mean many years in jail without a trial.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - doubleg72 3y ago
        South America maybe?
  - nicup12345689 3y ago
    Only anglo-tard, 'guess the intent' legal systems. "Is he a person having bad thoughts?"
staticman2 3y ago
If you were accused of using a pistol emoji you or your lawyer would present evidence that it was a water gun on your device.
throwaway8877 3y ago
But what if you knew that your water pistol is rendered as a gun
- ohdannyboy 3y ago
  The prosecutor would argue it at trial and a jury would decide if the argument is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.
clearleaf 3y ago
On the article, the "side-eyed-moon" doesn't look like a side eyed moon to me. It looks like a normal smiley face.
- o11c 3y ago
  Same here. Firefox on Linux; not sure what extra font packages I've installed at various times.
kistaro 3y ago
Even worse, sending a friendly affectionate yellow heart -- how was I supposed to know the recipient was using [Android 4.42](https://thenextweb.com/news/pink-hairy-hart-emoji https://thenextweb.com/news/pink-hairy-hart-emoji)?

neonate 3y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20231230141637/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/12/emoji-corporate-lawsuits-court/676967/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231230141637/https://www.theat... https://archive.ph/Sm6Ym https://archive.ph/Sm6Ym

User23 3y ago

It’s fascinating living in a country whose legal system treats vowing before God to stay with someone exclusives until death as absolutely meaningless but will treat a smiley face picture as a legally binding statement.

stonogo 3y ago
Marriage doesn't have to involve God, and securities fraud doesn't require "legally binding statements" to execute. Once you take away the hyperbole, there's not much left to examine here, except to ask what is fascinating about it.
gumby 3y ago
Why, because it’s rational? A visual expression can be produced in court. A verbal promise is binding n some US jurisdictions (e.g. California) but hard to litigate when you can’t subpoena the witness. Also in a contractual matter (such as marriage), if the “exchange of value” or guarantor is entirely mythical how can such an agreement be binding? It’s not like the injured party can collect from the guarantor. That’s why some contracts require a payment of a dollar (e.g. patent assignment to your company) so it can be “for value received”. Now if you’re a cryptoweenie I suppose you’d say that the “fiat dollar” is just as mythical…good luck litigating that.
NikolaNovak 3y ago
Oh boy lots to unpack! * If we subscribe to principle that "legal system impacting everyone equally" and "personal religious beliefs" should be separate (and I do!:), then "vowing before God to stay with someone" should indeed be "legally absolutely meaningless", unless you also enter in a bespoke legal contract, understood by both parties to be such, with details on what happens when two parties want to terminate the contract, jointly or individually. Basically, if you want to talk "legal contract", let's talk legal contracts, which are rarely truly inescapable and have well established means of binding and exit. If you want to talk divine commitments, by all means, but that's really between you and your divine being of choice, and it is my understanding that most divine systems handle such cases appropriately (whether by eternal damnation or multiples of readily-available virgins, et cetera:). Just, let's not mix them up to make some vague points. * "Smiley Picture" and "funny written scribble" (a signature) have similarities. We readily in most legal systems accept "if I use a funny written scribble to really really mean something, no take-baksies!", then what's the real difference to smiley picture? * Or put it another way, what are the first principle under which a signature should count for something, or a written expression, that a emoji, used to convey same meaning, should not? I.e. if I ask "will you deliver to this contract", and you text back "Yup!" or thumbs up emoji, what is the difference? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/thumbs-up-emoji-costs-sask-farmer-82-thousand-1.6898686 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/thumbs-up-emoji-...

tahoeskibum 3y ago

Just replace "emoji" which has low brow connotations, with "pictographic symbol language". Then, everything will make sense.

zharknado 3y ago

This example is particularly salient because one point of evidence is a single emoji in a tweet: <full moon face emoji> This is a bit analogous to the “Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” idea, in that by default my intuition would be that conveying a single word or symbol couldn’t possibly be weighty enough to constitute a crime on its own, but in certain contexts, it probably can.

gunapologist99 3y ago
Speech has to incite "imminent lawless action" to be illegal. Brandenburg v Ohio
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  And it has to be intended to do so.

dcan 3y ago

Emojis are contract law in Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/thumbs-up-emoji-costs-sask-farmer-82-thousand-1.6898686 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/thumbs-up-emoji-...

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
I find the results of that famous case completely insane. A "thumbs up" emoji doesn't always mean "I read the contract and I herby sign it", it's often a lazy answer for "I read your last message with your request and will tend to it when I have the time and will get back to you later with my final answer".
- Majromax 3y ago
  > I find the results of that famous case completely insane. A "thumbs up" emoji doesn't always mean [...] I invite you to read the decision itself (https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skkb/doc/2023/2023skkb116/2023skkb116.html https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skkb/doc/2023/2023skkb116/2023s...), rather than rely on mass-media summaries. In this case, the court does not in fact decide that a thumbs-up emoji always means something. Instead, it considers the parties' histories to note that prior contracts between them were often approved with a simple 'ok,' 'yup', or 'looks good'. The parties did not have a history of initially confirming receipt of a proposed contract and then later negotiating terms or having a separate signing. In that very specific context, the court found that thumbs-up emoji was a short approval much like 'yup'; see paragraphs 21 and 34-36 of the decision.

antisthenes 3y ago

If Emojis are legally actionable, then is "in Minecraft" a legally valid defense?

lieuwex 3y ago
no