There’s more to emojis than smiley faces

Emoji dictionaries, both online and print versions, should now be available on all communication devices, not only because their use is widespread but also because they are prone to be widely misunderstood. The recent case of the BSNL executive whose annoyance over certain emoji replies from her colleagues about something she posted on their WhatsApp group led to 46 of them being charged under various laws, only underlines the necessity.

The Madras High Court quashed the FIR saying that employees should be able to “express their feelings and share ideas”, but the fact is that emojis have been at the centre of many a case the world over, mostly because the judiciary is divided on the moot point: can or should a cartoonish smiley, weepy or grumpy face be taken seriously?

Emojis and emoticons are increasingly featuring in court cases—and even in actual verdicts. Already there are murmurs in legal circles that specialists in “digital literacy” need to be hired to assess whether emoji conversations meet standards of evidence, without contextual tone or gestures.

If a sequence of emojis sent to a prospective landlord —a smiley face, a comet, a champagne bottle, dancing yellow Playboy bunnies and a chipmunk—is interpreted by an Israeli judge as an agreement to rent, clearly, learn-as-you-go emo-lexicons are sorely needed.