Emoji = PRISON!

a reply to: hefficide

There is no need to know the mind and intent of the people involved.

If they were stupid enough to communicate a threat of violence -- that's really what this boils down to -- after already commiting an act of violence against the same victim, then a prediliction for violence has already been set.

And that, my friend, is their own damn fault.

Actions have consequences, and here we are.

a reply to: maria_stardust

No need to know the intent?

The very definition of a "threat" is absolutely about INTENT.

Oh, and reread the article. They "attempted" assault. What that means I cannot say, but it is short OF assault - IE they did NOT commit an act of violence beforehand.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think a threat that lacks details is less of a threat.

Using emoji's you can't give a very detailed threat.

Me+Fist+Hospital.

Okay. That's not quite the same as calling up someone and saying, "I'm going to drive over there with a knife and skin you alive!" (I'd use a more realistic example but I don't want to be to graphic).

If context and perceived threat levels matter, the emoji threat is much lower on whatever scale exists. There used to kind of be a scale, it was called "common sense". It was called that because it was "common" to everyone that had any sense.

The threat only lacks detail if you do not spend all day glued to your phone texting. Unfortunately many people do. To the people that do. The threat lacks no detail at all. Like I have said before. This is really a language and translation issue.

The second issue is whether or not someone should be arrested for violent words and not actions. But that is an issue that can relate to things said in English, Spanish, Martian, Klingon, or Emoji. It is an issue that has been here for many years. It is not something new. The only thing new is the language the violent words were delivered with.

a reply to: hefficide

So their attempt of violence is not enough to infer intent?

Interesting.

a reply to: maria_stardust

Their attempt of violence was apparently not enough to warrant an arrest. I guess it didn't involve enough emoji's or something.

And, yes, very interesting.

a reply to: hefficide

Ah, but a previous attempt of violence is enough to infer ill-intent when communicating a threat via emojis.

Seriously, how else was that message to be intepreted? "Hey, I'm really sorry about the other night. Let's go grab a pizza and watch a chick flick."

Let's just say, the intended message wasn't exactly warm and fuzzy.

But, hey, if we're willing to turn a blind eye towards that and pretend that message doesn't contain a potential threat of violence, who cares?

I think this kind of discourse is needed, because the internet and technology like phones and texting etc have created a whole new world where we have to define what these technologies represent in term of our intent and adherence to law.
We do use these tools to communicate, whether that be threat to foe, or friendship.

Because Emojis are cartoonish it makes light of a situation. However I can't say whether these guys were wronged or were guilty without knowing background and context. They may have been a couple of uni students typing rubbish when drunk or a couple of guys that really intended to harm the person.

I think the older peeps like me and you Heff who were raised by Loony Toons cartoons, where a cat being diced through wire (Sylvester) or a coyote being blown up or squished by a rock desensitized us to violence when in cartoon format.

That may not be the case now. the emojis may have been a genuine threat. Dunno*shrugs*

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: hefficide


Seriously, how else was that message to be intepreted? "Hey, I'm really sorry about the other night. Let's go grab a pizza and watch a chick flick."

Let's just say, the intended message wasn't exactly warm and fuzzy.

But, hey, if we're willing to turn a blind eye towards that and pretend that message doesn't contain a potential threat of violence, who cares?

THAT is the point! While it was not warm and fuzzy, neither is it an act of violence. There is no victim other than the recipients feelings - and the law already had a slew of remedies that do not involve people going to jail. In a sane world this "victim" would have simply filed a protective order if he were truly frightened.

The fact that the "attempted assault" did not end with anyone going to jail - particularly in this day and age when sneezing in the wrong tone will get you tazed half to death - speaks VOLUMES about just how unconcerned the police must have been.

Obviously it was less severe than three pictures over Facebook. I despise bullies, but when the world gets so hyper sensitive that THIS is considered bullying? Well, how does one pick out the real bullies when the bar for being offended is set so low that THIS qualifies?

a reply to: karmicecstasy

Emoji's are ICONS.

Icons have basic meanings. Basic means simple, non-complex. Non-complex = non-detailed.

The only way to take an emoji message in a detailed way is to ADD meaning and detail yourself.

Emoji messaging was developed as a faster way to communicate a thought or emotion -- not actual specifics or details. If someone is conjuring up meaning, intent, details and complications out of an emoji -- that's on them. They are building upon something that may or may not even exist.

That's like me reading to much into LOL. Was it a sarcastic LOL? Was he really laughing out loud? How intensely funny was that LOL?

"Don't blame us, this is how we communicate now!" -- Yes, I do blame the youth for forcing us to lower our standards of communication, and forcing us accept that "hidden meanings" can exist in simple icons. No, I refuse to play that game. An icon is an icon.

The save icon in MS Word means save. It does not mean, "Save forever?" or "Save just part of it?" -- it means "save". That's it. An icon in and of itself is meant to communicate a singular, simple message -- this is why they are used.

Now apparently we hidden, multiple potential meanings in icons. We could spend hours agonizing over what actual meaning they have.

If you are going to go through all that internal turmoil to pluck out a hidden, deeper meaning in an icon -- you might as well have just sent an email with typed words, or made a simple phone call.

a reply to: hefficide

Words, pictures, whatever, its called "menacing" in most areas and yes it is illegal. Not so confusing to me really.

a reply to: Urantia1111

There would be even more people in the over crowded prison system if we locked up everyone who ever made a "menacing" remark about another human being.

I don't see these emoji's as a specific, direct threat. More of a general "i have a desire to hurt you".

You know, I've had the desire to harm other people before...shameful, but I'll be honest. I've told people that if I could, I'd smack the hell out of them. Do I deserve to be in prison for that?

a reply to: hefficide

Then by your reasoning, threats of violence are not criminal offenses because they do not measure up an actual act of violence. It's only a matter of speech.

So threats against a person, such as the POTUS, should be ignored.

Or, bomb threats.

Or, any type of threat, really. Because they are all merely words until they're followed up by actions. In which case, a threat is no longer a threat but a bona fide act.

Got it.

a reply to: Urantia1111

Menacing Law & Legal Definition

Menacing is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state, but typically involves displaying a weapon or a course of conduct that intentionally places another person in reasonable fear of physical injury or death. The following is an example of a state law that deals with menacing:

S 120.13 Menacing in the first degree.

A person is guilty of menacing in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of menacing in the second degree and has been previously convicted of the crime of menacing in the second degree within the preceding ten years.

Menacing in the first degree is a class E felony.

S 120.14 Menacing in the second degree.

A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:

He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or
He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued.

Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 120.15 Menacing in the third degree.

A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.

Menacing in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.

Source

This might qualify as menacing in the second degree IF there were more than two incidents over a period of time. But as it stands what is described in the article does not meet the definition of menacing. And that is if I concede that emoticons can somehow be menacing at all - which I personally do not.

originally posted by: hefficide

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: hefficide


Seriously, how else was that message to be intepreted? "Hey, I'm really sorry about the other night. Let's go grab a pizza and watch a chick flick."

Let's just say, the intended message wasn't exactly warm and fuzzy.

But, hey, if we're willing to turn a blind eye towards that and pretend that message doesn't contain a potential threat of violence, who cares?

THAT is the point! While it was not warm and fuzzy, neither is it an act of violence.

This I agree with. It was not an act of violence. It was mean words. But you can be arrested for mean words. This is not the first time it has happened. For years and years you could be arrested for mean words. Many people have been arrested for using mean words. That is the real issue. That is an issue we both probably agree on. That people should be less sensitive about what is being said with words and not actions.

But you made your thread all about Emoji's and how Emoji's will bring about a police state where thought crimes will be punished. You should of made that thought crime thread years ago. When these laws first started hitting the books. Not when those laws were upheld in a case where Emoji's were used to convey the threat.

How the threat was delivered does not really matter. Emoji is just another form of communication. The same way English is. Some people might not like it at all. Might think it makes people seem dumb when they use it. I do not personally use it. But more and more people are using it. So you can not just dismiss it.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Well let's see...

we have a fist, and a finger pointing to an ambulance. I really don't think the message could have been articulated anymore precisely or efficiently than that lol.

I can not believe that people are trying to compare emoticons or emojis with terrorism, loaded guns, act to commit murder or just showing the thought process that can end up becoming a crime.

So if we are to think this way, it means that even thinking about what is considered a crime is actually the thought process of planning to execute a crime, where is the line between crime and the thinking of committing one, should we all be in jail at some point in our lives under such assumption.

This brings me to the rights of freedom of speech at least in countries that support such rights.

When a right is a crime or the mere thought of it.?

Want complicated issues when it comes to who feel like what? I can go on and on.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: karmicecstasy



"Don't blame us, this is how we communicate now!" -- Yes, I do blame the youth for forcing us to lower our standards of communication, and forcing us accept that "hidden meanings" can exist in simple icons. No, I refuse to play that game. An icon is an icon.

You might refuse to play the game. But the game goes on because the majority around you continue to play the game and they will win in the end because they are younger and will outlive you.

I personally detest txt speak. But I realize it is here to stay. More and more people are using it as their primary way to communicate. Language evolves. I wish we could all still communicate in Latin because I like the language. But it is not going to happen.

Like I said in a previous post. This is all just a generational language issue. Mixed with the separate issue of whether or not threatening words should be an arrestable crime. Which I think they should not be. But they are. So now we have to deal with the emerging internet languages and how to integrate people using them with current laws. Are those current laws extreme. Maybe. But they have been there for years and are not new at all. So where was the outcry when these laws were passed.

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: hefficide

Then by your reasoning, threats of violence are not criminal offenses because they do not measure up an actual act of violence. It's only a matter of speech.

So threats against a person, such as the POTUS, should be ignored.

Or, bomb threats.

Or, any type of threat, really. Because they are all merely words until they're followed up by actions. In which case, a threat is no longer a threat but a bona fide act.

Got it.

a reply to: maria_stardust

That is an absolute straw man argument. If I tell somebody that I am going to punch them in the nose that is nowhere near the same as threatening to kill the POTUS or to set off bombs. There is nothing at all in common with this article and the dots you are attempting to connect here. This is an example of absolutist thought taken to an incomprehensible extreme.

The implication in the real world is that there is now apparently a zero tolerance policy for offending others or making them feel insecure. Real threats should absolutely be taken seriously. But this? If this qualifies as a "real threat" then we are about half an inch away from considering eye contact to be murder/rape/criminal trespassing. I mean after all - looking at somebody can make them feel uncomfortable in a myriad of ways? Why not give the "victims" the benefit of the doubt and prosecute based upon how they feel?

Did a little digging here for more context.

Maybe good ole Matthew was threatening the guy who got him busted back in February.

Lee Matthew Cowan, 29 of S. Bomar Ave. Landrum, SC was arrested and charged with 3-Counts of Breaking and Entering, 2-Counts of Larceny after Breaking and Entering, 3-Counts of Conspiracy to Commit Breaking and Entering, Larceny of Motor Vehicle, and Possession of Stolen Goods. Cowan is in custody at the Polk County Detention Facility under an $80,000 secure bond. He is scheduled for a first appearance today to determine legal representation.

Source

i am utterly failing to comprehend the mindset of the ATS members arguing :

" this is not a threat "

just WTF ?????????????

for the purpose of this post i am making the assumption that the intended ` message ` was :

fists lead to ambulance rides .

now as i would expect any sane , competant adult to already be aware of this fact - it would be redundant to offer it as " advice " or " information "

IMHO its nothing BUT a threat