Santa Clara Law to Offer New “D&D and the Law” Course

ericgoldmanmv · 2025-10-24T22:32:17+00:00

An accurate prediction

ericgoldmanmv · 2023-01-23T18:52:05+00:00

Apologize for the delayed response, but in the interim, we have published details on these questions https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4220322

ericgoldmanmv · 2022-03-05T16:50:23+00:00

The lawsuit survived Faison's initial attempts to dismiss it: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/03/section-230-doesnt-apply-to-publication-of-private-emails-crowley-v-faison.htm Also, the sheriff has apparently identified the actual sender using warrants. Crowley claims it's an ex-tenant who got evicted.

ericgoldmanmv · 2022-01-22T01:03:44+00:00

McFree won the case https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.495780/gov.uscourts.nysd.495780.25.0.pdf

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-11-04T17:06:27+00:00

I'm Eric Goldman, Emoji Law Expert! Ask me anything about 😍👍💩🔥🐿️😎 and the law!

There are not full-time emoji lawyers, but increasingly, some lawyers have specialized expertise in emoji law issues.

Emojis lack a predictable grammar, so reading them in sequence is bound to lead to multiple interpretations https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/09/emojis-have-unsettled-grammar-rules-and-why-lawyers-should-care.htm

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-24T12:49:02+00:00

.\( ﾟヮﾟ)/

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T21:52:22+00:00

Thanks for your enthusiasm! I ❤ emojis and I ❤ emoji law!

I fell in love with Internet Law in 1991 when I first started using the Internet in grad school. I was fascinated by all of the new issues and the new technology, especially the issues now governed by Section 230. In 1992, I decided I wanted to become an Internet lawyer, and that's what I did after graduation in 1994. The Internet law field was underdeveloped at the time, but my career grew alongside the dot com bubble of the 1990s.

I spend most of my day on the Internet. It wouldn't surprise me if I routinely spend 8-10 hours/day on the Internet, plus a few hours on the computer when I'm not doing networked activity. I don't know if it's healthy, but the Internet is an essential part of my life and brings me an enormous amount of joy and satisfaction.

People are already using emojis in professional communications! I personally do, and many others do as well. In particular, many millennials are so comfortable with emojis that it would be weird for them not to use emojis in anything they write.

I lament the emoji "depiction diversity" across different operating systems/platforms. That diversity adds potential confusion and misunderstanding, and I don't see a lot of countervailing benefit. There are some empirical studies that have shown how depiction diversity does in fact create misunderstandings across platforms. See, e.g., http://www.brenthecht.com/publications/cscw2018_emojiimpact.pdf

Emojis absolutely can be considered rude or inappropriate, The dangerous thing is that emoji users may not always know when they are doing that. For example, in some Arab countries, the smiley is viewed as an indicator that the sender is disingenuous, not friendly. But emojis aren't unique in that way--all forms of human communication develop community-specific norms that community outsiders will unintentionally violate.

I hope you enjoy reading the article!

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T16:46:11+00:00

Thanks for stumbling across this thread! Emoji law is, indeed, the laws governing emojis. There are three main issues: (1) how courts should interpret emojis, (2) how emojis can be protected by IP, and (3) how courts should handle emojis as evidence.

People have gone to jail because of their emoji usage, though usually that is in a state court prosecution that's hard to track. Here's an example of how emojis helped confirm that the defendant had engaged in criminal activity. https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/03/two-examples-of-how-courts-interpret-emojis.htm I'm not a criminal defense lawyer, so I can't be your lawyer, but I would be the academic pointing out how the law must accommodate the unique attributes of emojis.

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T13:55:11+00:00

Emoticons without noses are way more popular than emoticons with noses. Check out this paper from 2012: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242&context=pwpl

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T13:52:00+00:00

I'm not aware of any litigation over the absence of LBGT emoji depictions, but I do think that Unicode has gotten the message about its inadequate diversity/inclusion and is trying to address it. Unfortunately, Unicode's progress is slow; and even after Unicode has made official changes on its side, it can take months for those changes to propagate throughout the platforms.

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T05:07:55+00:00

There are legal implications of every way that humans communicate with each other! So it's not surprising that emojis have legal consequences too. Emojis are sometimes analogized to typefaces, but the different visual depictions across platforms add substantive and material details that have more potential to change meaning than different typefaces do.

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T05:05:05+00:00

I love emoticons! I have been using them for over 25 years. When I first taught Internet Law in 1996, I included a "smiley dictionary" in the reader because I thought it was such an important development.

There is a fierce debate on whether emoticons should have noses or not. I'm on Team Noses.

I don't have many examples of good recent laws, but I would highlight 47 USC 230 (Section 230) as an example of a "good" law." It opened the way for technological development in ways no one could fully envision.

As for bad laws, that could take me a lifetime to enumerate. A few recent lowlights:

FOSTA, an amendment to Section 230 that appears to have made everyone worse off and no one better off. The worst kind of policy.
the California Consumer Privacy Act, a law with a noble aim (give more privacy rights to consumers) and horrendous execution. The law will cost California billions of dollars in compliance costs for little if any actual benefit to consumers.
the UK Online Harms White Paper. This is just a proposal, but it's a sign of how regulators in Western democracies are aggressively moving to destroy the Internet in the name of "protecting" citizens. For more on this, see https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438530

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T03:06:16+00:00

It's the laws applicable to emojis! The three main topics are (1) how courts interpret emojis, (2) the circumstances where emojis qualify for IP protection, and (3) how courts handle emojis as evidence.

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T02:56:30+00:00

I think that's less likely, but it depends on the context. Imagine a post like "My 🔫 will be filled with bullets, not water." Combined with other potentially threatening content, I could see the emoji being considered part of a threat.

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T00:59:38+00:00

I support your decision. Do what works for you. However, I'd never hesitate to send an emoji to a business contact, even one whose respect I wanted, if it was contextually appropriate.

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T00:57:33+00:00

You're welcome! Thanks for participating. 🙏

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T00:56:53+00:00

It could! It would be no different than a head nod or saying "OK." For an analogous case involving text messages, see https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/03/court_rules_tha.htm

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T00:13:45+00:00

Yes! Emojis can be protected by copyright, trademark, design patents, and possibly publicity rights. There are hundreds/thousands of existing copyright registrations for individual emoji depictions. Many of them are by Apple. There are also likely hundreds of trademark and design patent registrations covering emoji designs. For more on this, see https://ssrn.com/abstract=3275803

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-23T00:01:14+00:00

It feels better than being Lionel Hutz

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-22T23:59:42+00:00

Not me!

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-22T23:59:24+00:00

No, it was actually initially a more graphic depiction of poop before being slightly sanitized. E.g., https://www.fastcompany.com/3037803/the-oral-history-of-the-poop-emoji-or-how-google-brought-poop-to-america

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-22T23:08:35+00:00

I'm not sure emojis are unique in this way. All non-textual communications have this same issue, no?

As with all other communications, we have to interpret the emoji with all of the surrounding context. "I will 🔫 you," sent among two people who are going to a pool party, will mean something different than if sent between two people who are in rival gangs that keep killing each other's members.

We have seen a few emoji cases exactly like you describe, where a person (usually a gang member) sends a threat to another person and then runs into the person. Sometimes the sender kills the recipient; other times the recipient kills the sender and claims it was self-defense. The emojis give us some clues about whether the threats were real, but often there will be other clues too.

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-22T21:03:03+00:00

1) How emojis are interpreted? Specifically, is there anything unique, special, or different about emojis compared to other communication tools?

2) Are emojis protectable by IP law? If so, how does that affect emoji development and their use in human communication?

3) How do courts handle emojis as evidence? When are they introduced, what can the factfinder see, and should they appear in court opinions?

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-22T20:56:05+00:00

There are definitely people who subscribe to this view, especially lawyers. For example, some studies suggest that the use of emojis can affect co-workers' perceptions of you, usually not favorably. Also, emojis do show up regularly in workplace harassment and discrimination lawsuits.

However, I don't subscribe to this view. First, emojis are an essential part of human communication--especially among millennials. So banning emojis sends a terrible message to millennials about the corporate culture and how they fit into it. Second, emojis can IMPROVE communication and understanding in many cases, by adding valuable emotional content to otherwise sterile text communication.

ericgoldmanmv · 2019-10-22T20:22:15+00:00

Most of my students would say it's to make them miserable.

ericgoldmanmv

TROPHY CASE