Emoji are legally actionable(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Emoji are legally actionable
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/12/emoji-corporate-lawsuits-court/676967/
35 comments
Just replace "emoji" which has low brow connotations, with "pictographic symbol language". Then, everything will make sense.
Emojis are contract law in Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/thumbs-up-emoji-...
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".
> 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/2023/2023skkb116/2023s...), 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.
I invite you to read the decision itself (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.
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.
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.
Speech has to incite "imminent lawless action" to be illegal. Brandenburg v Ohio
And it has to be intended to do so.
If Emojis are legally actionable, then is "in Minecraft" a legally valid defense?
no
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-emo...
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-emo...
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.
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.
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.
The simple answer is, it's not "what it looked like to the other person" it's the intent of the author.
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.
I’d note in America many nights can easily mean many years in jail without a trial.
[deleted]
South America maybe?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Only anglo-tard, 'guess the intent' legal systems. "Is he a person having bad thoughts?"
Yep. What Color are your bits.
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)?
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.
But what if you knew that your water pistol is rendered as a gun
The prosecutor would argue it at trial and a jury would decide if the argument is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.
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.
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We have an entire legal framework revolving around the dissolution of marriages and the surrounding issues. Its kind of a big deal (and has nothing to do with God, who the government does not enforce contracts for). Churches can (and do) enforce the "until death" vow part by treating divorcees differently within their organization.
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.
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.
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.
Could be in part because of the separation of church and state, and that monogamous pairings under organized civil legal systems has existed far longer than your God and already had routines in place for dissolution of said pairings, especially in cases where one partner is harmful to the other, despite fantastic and ritualistic promises and vows.
[deleted]
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-...
* 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-...
https://archive.ph/Sm6Ym