That ;) You Type Can and Will Be Used Against You in a Court of Law - Polidicks

[b]That ;) You Type Can and Will Be Used Against You in a Court of Law[/b] Source: [url=http://www.wired.com/2015/02/emoji-in-court-cases/]Wired[/url] _______________ [quote][img]http://i.imgur.com/HP0Bd99.jpg[/img] On January 15, Osiris Aristy opened up Facebook, posted a photo of a gun and wrote, “feel like katxhin a body right now.” Later that night, he added, “Nigga run up on me, he gunna get blown down” and followed that with an emoji of a police officer and three gun emoji pointing at it. After an hour, he posted another similar message. Three days later, Aristy, 17, was arrested by New York City police at his home in Brooklyn. According to a criminal complaint, the teen was charged with making a terroristic threat, along with charges of weapon and marijuana possession. His posts, the complaint argued, constituted a threat against police. They felt intimidated and harassed—emoji and all. o_O Emoji are the language of our online era, the thumbs-up to a question, the wink to our wit, the peach to our eggplant. They’re a splash of color in black and white communication, conveying things mere words often cannot. We send emoji to improve upon, even expand, our words and bring emotion—affection, frustration, love, anger—to the conversation. Now, like the tweets, posts, and texts that are a crucial part of the way we communicate today, emoji, and their brethren emoticons, are finally getting their due in court. And like everything we love online, it’s complicated, kind of. Several recent arrests and prosecutions have included, at least in part, emoji. At the beginning of the recent Silk Road trial of Ross Ulbricht, US District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled “the jury should note the punctuation and emoticons” in all evidence. (In the trial, attorneys then, quite literally, said “emoticon” when the symbols appeared in chat conversations.) In a case currently pending before the US Supreme Court, Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man who was convicted for using Facebook posts to threaten his ex-wife, has claimed that a threatening post toward her was clearly meant in “jest” because he included a smiley sticking its tongue out. None of these cases relied solely on the emoji, of course. Evidence, arrests, and prosecutions are far more complicated than that. But, as social media becomes increasingly important evidence for law enforcement, so too do emoji. When the digital symbol for a gun, a smile, or a face with stuck-out tongue comes up in court, they aren’t being derided or ignored. Emoji matter. When you talk to someone in person, you hear the intonation of their voice, see the cringe of their face, and react to the movement of their body. Online, we have only words. “If I were texting or emailing you, you couldn’t get that,” says Tyler Schnoebelen, a linguist and the founder of Ibidon, which helps companies analyze and understand language data from emails, chats, and social media. “I might do other things—add emoji or emoticons, words like LOL, or include multiple vowels, like soooo, just so you have a sense of how I’m emoting.” Such things can stand in for a facial expression, or clarify context. They can transform a sentence that seems serious into a joke, or make what seems to be a joke serious. They can be playful, sarcastic, ambiguous, and dirty. Sometimes, they replace words altogether. And if someone is to fully understand a text phrase or conversation—to truly parse what we were saying—they cannot be left out. That means that in court—if the larger piece of evidence is seen as authentic and admissible—the emoji should be read or shown, too. Yet this can quickly get complicated because it’s not always clear what emoji mean. For investigators, attorneys, and jurors trying to determine, or prove, the intent of a phrase, as in the Elonis case, it’s often much more complicated than : ) means this past sentence was pleasing. Maybe the person was being polite. Maybe they were trying to dull a blow. Maybe it’s an evil grin and the person is being ironic. Without the context of who is using the symbol, who received it, and an understanding of how those two people—or the people in their community—typically use it, the intent may not immediately be clear. We all use emoji, and we all have opinions. So, it’s no surprise that the recent public reaction to emoji cropping up in evidence has been somewhat frenetic. “What do Emoji mean?” asks The Atlantic, while wondering if they’re “vital.” Mashable says the law around emoji is “murky.” The New York Times considers “how jurors should be educated about unfamiliar terms” in cases with web evidence. And BuzzFeed says, well, let’s just blame 9/11. These questions, in part, are real and important—we don’t always know what emoji mean and, sure, they may be unfamiliar. But, besides tweaking already common practices, emoji shouldn’t change all that much in court. Because what we mean when we use language is never crystal clear, and never has been. “Emoji are new, so they haven’t been conventionalized,” Schnoebelen explains. “But they work like a lot of other things that we know. And, just like with any particular word or a laugh, it’s pretty dangerous to say that you know what’s happening, what the intent is, based on one symbol.” Part of the role of a prosecutor in a criminal trial, like in the case of a threat, can be to demonstrably prove intent—and that is complicated both with emoji or without. To help clarify intent, technical language, or slang, attorneys may ask witnesses or defendants to explain the meaning of the language they used or read. “To me, emoji are no different than drug slang in a criminal controlled substances case,” explains Greg Hurley, an analyst for the National Center for State Courts who spent a decade as a criminal defense attorney. “They may need some interpretation in some situations, in others the content may be obvious.” Want to know what an emoji implies? Ask. (Which is exactly what happened at one point in the Silk Road trial.) And, even if a juror unfamiliar with emoji might misunderstand or misinterpret their meaning at first, they can learn. “More users pick up on the conventions after interacting for a while with others who use them,” says Susan Herring, a professor of information science and linguistics at Indiana University Bloomington. “Emoji in isolation could cause some puzzlement, but in the context of a textual message, though, the sender’s intended meaning of an emoji is usually clear.” Because humans are smart! We’re used to dealing with the complexities of language. With some context and explanation, we can, usually, figure it out. Like the rest of us, when it comes to emoji, the courts are figuring it out. Last week, Aristy’s criminal charge of making a terroristic threat was dropped, according to his attorney, Fred Pratt. A decision in the Elonis case, which deals predominantly with more complex First Amendment questions about threats, is pending. Ulbricht was convicted of all seven charges against him in the Silk Road case. Emoji were, at most, a sideshow for all of these trials, but they have become an integral part of our digital life. And that means they, like the tweets and texts and IMs we so often send, will increasingly be offered as evidence in court. So, remember, anything you ; ) can and will be used against you in a court of law – but, that’s true of what you say, too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯[/quote] Maybe it's the years and years of browsing forums and imageboards, but 99.9% of the times I can tell when someone is joking or not, even without emoticons... that's the beauty of it, it's up to the reader to pick up the sarcasm. In most movies with closed captions turned on, the symbol "(?)" at the end of a sentence symbolizes sarcasm too. I'm afraid of living in a sarcastically impaired world. Are we supposed to say "BTW I'm actually joking around" at the end of everything we type? For fuck's sake. [editline]14th February 2015[/editline] BTW Garry, I'm gonna murder you and your family. :v: [editline]14th February 2015[/editline] I accidentally the title. Please fix it, mods! [highlight](User was banned for this post ("don't post full articles please" - OvB))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47138235] BTW Garry, I'm gonna murder you and your family. :v: [/QUOTE] I'm calling the cops! You won't hurt my Garry!

Didn't the secret service and Scotland Yard contacted Garry once because someone was making obama death threats on FP?

[QUOTE=adam1172;47138285]Didn't the secret service and Scotland Yard contacted Garry once because someone was making obama death threats on FP?[/QUOTE] What? I thought it was because of that FP'er who ran a hosting service who turned out to be a pedo... EDIT: Found it. [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1276521"]JWJ of Brohoster was arrested for lewd and lascivious behavior, and assaulting a minor.[/URL]

What is it with you and mile-long quotes in your SH OPs?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47138297]What is it with you and mile-long quotes in your SH OPs?[/QUOTE] I guess most of the news articles I read are rather long. However, I don't think this OP is [I]that[/I] long.

Oh, I see, it's the entire article again.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47138287]What? I thought it was because of that FP'er who ran a hosting service who turned out to be a pedo...[/QUOTE] No, don't think the police contacted Garry about JWJ

Nominating the OP for the "missing the point award"... Now my 2cents. It seems most everyone has no idea what freedom of speech means. It does not mean you are free to say anything and everything without legal consequences. Let's be realistic here. You live in a society. We have roads, treated water, a system of education, police, fire protection, ambulances- all this and more. Your rights can not infringe upon my rights. You can't threaten to kill people- even on the Internet. Saying it was a joke afterwards won't go over well either.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47138287]What? I thought it was because of that FP'er who ran a hosting service who turned out to be a pedo...[/QUOTE] That was far later on.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;47138321]Nominating the OP for the "missing the point award"... Now my 2cents. It seems most everyone has no idea what freedom of speech means. It does not mean you are free to say anything and everything without legal consequences. Let's be realistic here. You live in a society. We have roads, treated water, a system of education, police, fire protection, ambulances- all this and more. Your rights can not infringe upon my rights. You can't threaten to kill people- even on the Internet. Saying it was a joke afterwards won't go over well either.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong here then... you're saying we should treat [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm"]sarcasm[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire"]satire[/URL] as if they were [I]verbal[/I] loaded guns?

There's a difference between making a joke and posting a picture of a gun and saying you're going to kill some cops.

Maybe there's a correlation between comments/posts made on the internet about killing someone and actually *commiting* the crime, that we are not aware of? One would think that after spending a few minutes reading YouTube comments, the streets must be running red with blood, from all the hateful comments in there.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47138450]Maybe there's a correlation between comments/posts made on the internet about killing someone and actually *commiting* the crime, that we are not aware of? One would think that after spending a few minutes reading YouTube comments, the streets must be running red with blood, from all the hateful comments in there.[/QUOTE]There is something weird about Facebook that is compelling people who are going to or have recently committed crimes to actually post about their crimes on Facebook, often with damning evidence.

Just a tip don't quote the entire article ;)

[QUOTE=Citrus705;47138506]Just a tip don't quote the entire article ;)[/QUOTE] is that sarcasm i can't tell help i'm suing you

i wonder how they'll interpret :3

[QUOTE=JgcxCub;47138660]i wonder how they'll interpret :3[/QUOTE] Or ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

The writing style in the article is weird Feels like someone wanted to write a very over-dramatic article

[QUOTE=Trumple;47138887]The writing style in the article is weird Feels like someone wanted to write a very over-dramatic article[/QUOTE] Makes me mad. Feel like katxhin a body right meow :3 I'm just kitten. Edit: Local man arrested pretending to be a cat making murderous threats!

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47138673]Or ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)[/QUOTE] If the judge is clued up on his meme's he'll know you love da booty and drop the charges.

[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;47139703]If the judge is clued up on his meme's he'll know you love da booty and drop the charges.[/QUOTE] I can just imagine a judge in court looking at some death threat post with a lenny face on it, reading it out loud and then bursting into laughter when he gets to the lenny face And every time he tries to continue he just keeps laughing more

i swear that was not my winky face sir. I'm innocent! I've never even used that emote before!

Would I get arrested for saying, "I'm going to destroy Djibouti. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) " ?

[url=http://i.imgur.com/W0QgS4N.png]For the sarcasmist sarcasms[/url]

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;47138321]You can't threaten to kill people- even on the Internet. Saying it was a joke afterwards won't go over well either.[/QUOTE] I have a problem with this way of thinking. You're arresting someone even though they haven't committed a crime. It's certainly cost effective to just arrest the guy as opposed to investigating him, but that doesn't make it any more right to say "he posted a gun picture (presuming the one in the OP) and then hinted in emojis that he was going to kill cops. this man is a dangerous suicidal killer arrest him immediatly." Perhaps his post was a thoughtless reply to the recent events of cops shooting unarmed civilians? Perhaps it's the pseudo gangster bravado that his language makes me suspect he falls for. I don't think it's right to call someone a criminal for simply threatening.

It really blows my mind that I live in a country where you can be thrown in jail on the basis of a single, short post on the internet.

[QUOTE=sasherz;47140454]I have a problem with this way of thinking. You're arresting someone even though they haven't committed a crime. It's certainly cost effective to just arrest the guy as opposed to investigating him, but that doesn't make it any more right to say "he posted a gun picture (presuming the one in the OP) and then hinted in emojis that he was going to kill cops. this man is a dangerous suicidal killer arrest him immediatly." Perhaps his post was a thoughtless reply to the recent events of cops shooting unarmed civilians? Perhaps it's the pseudo gangster bravado that his language makes me suspect he falls for. I don't think it's right to call someone a criminal for simply threatening.[/QUOTE] Better to prevent a crime than to respond to one.

[QUOTE=sasherz;47140454]I have a problem with this way of thinking. You're arresting someone even though they haven't committed a crime. Perhaps his post was a thoughtless reply to the recent events of cops shooting unarmed civilians? Perhaps it's the pseudo gangster bravado that his language makes me suspect he falls for. I don't think it's right to call someone a criminal for simply threatening.[/QUOTE] Threatening to kill someone is a crime. You can call them a criminal for it! [quote] posted a photo of a gun and wrote, “feel like katxhin a body right now.” Later that night, he added, “Nigga run up on me, he gunna get blown down” and followed that with an emoji of a police officer and three gun emoji pointing at it.[/quote] Fucking seriously? I [I]wonder[/I] what his real message was in that then. He insinuated that hes going to kill a cop if he came in contact with them. The internet is all fun and games and kinda disgusting at times, but when you take it off websites and on to the most publicized social media site, someone is going to notice.

I'm going to steal the Declaration of Independence :^)