This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
B900 - Communications Bill 2015, The Hon. Barnetlad MP
Communications Bill 2015

A Bill to permit the use of symbols known as Emojis as evidence in legal proceedings


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-


A. Definitions

1. ‘Text’ shall mean an SMS message sent from a person from an electronic phone, tablet of other device to another person or persons, by means of wireless telephony.
2. ‘Emoji’ shall mean a graphical symbol used in communication and included in the dictionary published by the Secretary of State for Justice under the provisions of this Bill.

B. Admissible evidence in court or other legal proceedings

1. An Emoji included in a document, text or other communication may be used in evidence placed before any Court within the United Kingdom as part of any prosecution, defence, or any other legal proceedings.
2. The Secretary of State for Justice, under the provisions of this Bill, shall produce a dictionary of Emojis with definitions that apply for the purposes of admissible evidence. This shall be revised on an annual basis and a revised version published on 1 April each calendar year.
3. Any Emoji not contained within the dictionary published under section B2 of the Bill may not be used as evidence.

C. Title and Implementation of the Bill

1. This Bill shall be known as the Communications Bill 2015
2. Shall extend to the United Kingdom
3. This Bill will take effect from the date of Royal Assent of the Bill.

Note

This Bill is designed to give legal recognition to Emojis as this is a form of language used alongside English in many communications, especially emails and texts, and is easily accessible on many mobile devices. In criminal and divorce proceedings in particular, communication between two individuals is often used in evidence placed before the court. Where allegations of intimidation or harassment within the terms of malicious communication laws are concerned, this would allow Emojis to be considered as a threat or other form of intimidation.
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by Birchington)
B900 - Communications Bill 2015, The Hon. Barnetlad MP
Communications Bill 2015

A Bill to permit the use of symbols known as Emojis as evidence in legal proceedings


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-


A. Definitions

1. ‘Text’ shall mean an SMS message sent from a person from an electronic phone, tablet of other device to another person or persons, by means of wireless telephony.
2. ‘Emoji’ shall mean a graphical symbol used in communication and included in the dictionary published by the Secretary of State for Justice under the provisions of this Bill.

B. Admissible evidence in court or other legal proceedings

1. An Emoji included in a document, text or other communication may be used in evidence placed before any Court within the United Kingdom as part of any prosecution, defence, or any other legal proceedings.
2. The Secretary of State for Justice, under the provisions of this Bill, shall produce a dictionary of Emojis with definitions that apply for the purposes of admissible evidence. This shall be revised on an annual basis and a revised version published on 1 April each calendar year.
3. Any Emoji not contained within the dictionary published under section B2 of the Bill may not be used as evidence.

C. Title and Implementation of the Bill

1. This Bill shall be known as the Communications Bill 2015
2. Shall extend to the United Kingdom
3. This Bill will take effect from the date of Royal Assent of the Bill.

Note

This Bill is designed to give legal recognition to Emojis as this is a form of language used alongside English in many communications, especially emails and texts, and is easily accessible on many mobile devices. In criminal and divorce proceedings in particular, communication between two individuals is often used in evidence placed before the court. Where allegations of intimidation or harassment within the terms of malicious communication laws are concerned, this would allow Emojis to be considered as a threat or other form of intimidation.
What malicious, intimidating emojis were you thinking of in particular?
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
I actually think I'll give this an Aye.
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by RayApparently)
I actually think I'll give this an Aye.
When you mentioned maybe have a new job post-Premiership I didn't realise you had writing an emoji dictionary in mind, fair play
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Emojis are subjective, so no, this has not been thought through.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Wellzi)
Emojis are subjective, so no, this has not been thought through.
Most things are subjective
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
Is this a joke or are you genuinely serious? :eek:

It's a no from me because a) the interpretation of emoticons is highly subjective and this ‘dictionary of Emojis with definitions’ would be too rigorous, b) I refuse to encourage this idiotic trend of dumbing down language, especially one as rich and beautiful as English, and c) I'm pretty sure that emoticons are already taken into consideration when reviewing these types of evidence (texts, e-mails, etc.).
0
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by Wellzi)
Emojis are subjective, so no, this has not been thought through.
I think sending knife emojis in a certain context could have a clear meaning.
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Most things are subjective

(Original post by United1892)
I think sending knife emojis in a certain context could have a clear meaning.
Can't believe you're considering this.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Life_peer)
Is this a joke or are you genuinely serious? :eek:

It's a no from me because a) the interpretation of emoticons is highly subjective and this ‘dictionary of Emojis with definitions’ would be too rigorous, b) I refuse to encourage this idiotic trend of dumbing down language, especially one as rich and beautiful as English, and c) I'm pretty sure that emoticons are already taken into consideration when reviewing these types of evidence (texts, e-mails, etc.).
I do agree with LP on all but the subjective thing, it's a nay from me
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Wellzi)
Can't believe you're considering this.
I'm a Nay, but the subjective thing is a non argument.
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by James Milibanter)
I'm a Nay, but the subjective thing is a non argument.
How so? I'd like a bit more of a reason than "because I say so".
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Wellzi)
How so? I'd like a bit more of a reason than "because I say so".
Most things are subjective, including conventional language.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by James Milibanter)
I do agree with LP on all but the subjective thing, it's a nay from me
I'd like to add that unless one is very new to the internet, one should also realise that there's a plethora of people, especially older ones, who use these Emojis without understanding their meaning or ever realising what they're actually depicting (because they're tiny and their eyes aren't what they used to be), which leads to pretty funny situations.

Even with 20/20 vision and trousers well below the waist, there's considerable space for misinterpretation, for example the famous ‘fist bump’ vs. ‘punch’, each of which conveys a completely opposite meaning.

So there's even some pretty solid evidence.
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Most things are subjective, including conventional language.
With language, tone and context are much more evident in implying meaning. An image is not.
0
TeeEff
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
4
Hazzer1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
pointless ,Nay
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
I oppose the publishing of an authoritative dictionary (though I suppose a non-authoritative one could be useful, most of them already appear online), and I'm pretty certain emojis are admissible evidence anyway.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Life_peer)
Is this a joke or are you genuinely serious? :eek:

It's a no from me because a) the interpretation of emoticons is highly subjective and this ‘dictionary of Emojis with definitions’ would be too rigorous, b) I refuse to encourage this idiotic trend of dumbing down language, especially one as rich and beautiful as English, and c) I'm pretty sure that emoticons are already taken into consideration when reviewing these types of evidence (texts, e-mails, etc.).
(Original post by Life_peer)
I'd like to add that unless one is very new to the internet, one should also realise that there's a plethora of people, especially older ones, who use these Emojis without understanding their meaning or ever realising what they're actually depicting (because they're tiny and their eyes aren't what they used to be), which leads to pretty funny situations.

Even with 20/20 vision and trousers well below the waist, there's considerable space for misinterpretation, for example the famous ‘fist bump’ vs. ‘punch’, each of which conveys a completely opposite meaning.

So there's even some pretty solid evidence.
Agree with these.


However, I understand the idea behind the bill. Abstain
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
Nay, they're even more subjective than most communications, and as L_P said, a comprehensive dictionary would be quite something.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (157)
59.47%
No I haven't decided yet (61)
23.11%
Yes but I might change my mind (46)
17.42%

Watched Threads

View All