Decoding Emojis: Lessons from Abroad
Introduction
By Patricia Vilma Graham, J.D. Candidate, Michigan State University College of the Law, 2024; B.S.B.A. International Business, University of San Francisco, 2021. Thank you to Gabriel Wrobel, Online Forum Editor of the Michigan State Law Review, for his unwavering encouragement, patience, and hard work in editing this article. Thank you to my friends, Mackenzie, Jessica, Kendall, and Makala for graciously enduring the constant stream of text messages and memes that I send their way, and for being the best support system anyone could ask for. Thank you to my sisters, Samantha, Leta, Claire, and Sophia, for their insightful critiques and sound advice. Finally, to my readers, I leave you a complex combination of emojis: 📖🙏😊👍🤔📝🌟📲💬📤📈👥. Interpret it as you will.
Originally designed for simple expression, emojis have become a staple in the world of digital communication. These small, colorful symbols have emerged as a powerful yet enigmatic tool that can help expand written communication through visual communication and convey expressions, tones, gestures, and objects or symbols. From the “winking face with tongue” emoji (😜) used to add a playful touch, to the “heart hands” emoji (🫶) that accents messages of love or endearment, emojis are indispensable tools of nonverbal communication.[1] The beauty of emojis lies in their simplicity and ability to transcend borders and cultures.
My Note, Emojis: An Approach to Interpretation, explored emoji interpretation in the United States judicial system, examining the associated legal challenges and proposing court guidelines to tackle emoji interpretation.[2] Emojis present a unique challenge to the courts largely due to their ambiguous nature. Moreover, the absence of court guidelines further complicates matters, particularly since many legal professionals are unfamiliar with the interpretative complexities that emojis bring. The proposed court guidelines aim to address this issue by requiring a consideration of the visual representation of emojis and an analysis of context, focusing on societal context, cultural context, and environmental context. In this comparative analysis, I aim to expand on my previous work by embarking on a journey to explore how foreign courts interpret emojis and draw insights from these diverse global perspectives.
Part I briefly discusses the history of emojis and how these symbols gained popularity. Part II explores the ambiguous nature of emojis that allows them to carry multiple meanings. Part III examines foreign legal precedence, visiting case law from Israel, England, and Australia. Part IV builds upon the foreign case law, discussing key takeaways for the United States legal system.
I. A Global Courtroom Explosion
Emojis first took root in Japan in 1999 and from then on have globally exploded, transcending linguistic boundaries.[3] However, emojis were not the first of their kind. Turning back the clock to roughly 100 years before the creation of emojis, emoticons—facial expressions made using characters like :), ;), or :-0—made their first appearance in the United States in Puck Magazine.[4] Following decades of silence, emoticons made a resurgence in chatrooms in the 1990s as computers became household staples.[5] During the late 1990s, the digital age was booming, and by the mid 2000s, most countries had a connection to the internet.[6] Shortly thereafter, in the late 2000s and early 2010s, smartphones revolutionized the tech industry.[7] In 2010, emojis were integrated into the Unicode Standard, enabling their use on various networks and platforms.[8] The next year, in 2011, Apple created the first emoji keyboard. This sequence of events propelled emojis beyond Japan, allowing them to establish a global presence and gain popularity worldwide.[9] From then on, emojis engrained themselves in daily digital communication.
In the new digital age, where much of communication is conducted online or through text messages, users quickly became captivated by emojis, using them to enhance daily communication. Today, these modern-day hieroglyphics are used over ten billion times daily worldwide.[10] Emojis have spread to nearly all areas of digital communication, including social media, text messages, emails, and online education.[11] With digital natives becoming increasingly reliant on emojis to add depth and personality to their messages, emoticons and emojis soon found their way into the courtrooms in the United States. Emoticons debuted in their first legal dispute in 2004, and emojis followed suit in 2007.[12] In 2023, emojis and emoticons achieved a significant milestone by being referenced in over 1000 cases in the United States alone.[13] This surge of emoji references is not exclusive to the United States. Emojis have become seasoned travelers, likewise, infiltrating the foreign courts. Today, emojis are making news headlines worldwide, appearing in landmark decisions such as S.W. Terminal LTD v. Achter Land & Cattle LTD, from Canada, and high-profile cases such as Burrows v. Houda, from Australia.[14] The influx of emojis in the judicial systems across the globe presents the courts with the endeavor to tackle the newfound interpretative challenges associated with emojis.
II. Digital Voyage: The Challenges
In today’s interconnected world, emojis have emerged with the unique ability to transcend languages. Simple emojis such as ones representing common objects, like the “automobile” emoji (🚗), or activities, like the “swimmer” emoji (🏊), can be understood globally and do not require a translation. Despite this, emojis still lack universality. A study on how Muslims shared their thoughts during Ramadan in 2017 highlighted this limitation.[15] The study found that tweets tagged with Ramadan in Latin scripts like English, German, Spanish, and Turkish, predominantly featured the “red heart” emoji (❤️). In contrast, the “crescent moon” emoji (🌙) was prevalent in tweets in Arabic scripts like Urdu, and Farsi. Emojis, although appearing simple on their surface, are often shaped by several factors such as visual representation and societal, cultural, or environmental influences, and in this case, cultural influences. As a result, the inherent versatility and ambiguity of emojis bring unique challenges for interpretation.
Emojis, similar to words, can have numerous meanings. Due to their simplistic and versatile appearance, emojis are inherently ambiguous and allow a user to morph or creatively adapt meanings to meet the user’s needs. For example, in the United States, the seemingly innocent “ear of corn” emoji (🌽), aside from its apparent meaning, can be used to describe something as corny or as slang for pornography to bypass censors that restrict explicit content on social media.[16] However, the meaning of the “ear of corn” emoji (🌽) is largely localized to Gen Z Americans, while in China, the “clapping hand” emoji (👏) carries an equally explicit connotation.[17] Moreover, meanings become increasingly complex with emoji combinations and can represent words, (🌽⭐️) porn star; emotions, (👉👈) shyness; facial expressions, (👁️👄👁️) blank stare or awe; actions, (🦟🦗🦟🦗) dancing or “throwing it back;” or even aesthetics, (🧺👒🥛🐄) cottage-core aesthetic.[18] To decipher combination emojis, an individual needs to have an understanding of each emoji, coupled with localized knowledge and context. Overall, emoji interpretation can be a laborious task, requiring careful consideration.
A. High Time for Emoji Confusion: An Example
Combining the use of complex emoji meanings with illicit activity and cultural variances can create an enigma for the courts, enabling individuals to adeptly conceal communication, such as in the instance of drug trafficking. To illustrate, in the United States, the “herb” emoji (🌿) and the “maple leaf” emoji (🍁) are just a few of the emojis that represent cannabis.[19] Interestingly, the United States also has emoji combinations to represent an individual under the influence of cannabis: (😶🍳) cooked; (😳🍃) stoned; and (😳🔥) blazed.[20] As you can imagine, there is an expansive list of emojis to represent this popular recreational drug. Internationally, in India, the “four leaf clover” emoji (🍀), and in Mexico, the “four leaf clover” emoji (🍀) as well as the “evergreen tree” emoji (🌲) and the “palm tree” emoji (🌴) are a few symbols for cannabis or marijuana.[21] Notably, the “face exhaling” emoji (😮💨) transcends international borders and represents an individual smoking. Outside of drug trade, courts face emoji interpretation in nearly every area of law, from contract interpretation to defamation. These symbols have become indispensable in digital communication, and as a result, the courts must navigate the complexities and nuisances associated with emoji interpretation.
III. Global Precedence
Digital communication launched the courts into uncharted territory, presenting the courts with unprecedented challenges that demand innovative approaches. In the current legal landscape, emoji interpretation is still in its infancy with courts across the globe striving to discern the best approach to interpretation. Drawing insight from foreign case law, the following cases showcase why it is essential for the courts to consider context and conduct a comprehensive analysis that relies on various supplementary sources.
A. Context is Key
The following case recognizes that when used in conjunction with text, emojis can convey subtle nuances and intentions. In Dahan v. Shakaroff, an Israeli case, emoji evidence justified a landlord’s decision to keep an apartment off the market, entitling him to 8,000 NIS (around $2,200 USD) in compensation for lost rent from prospective tenants.[22] Core to the dispute, Yaniv Dahan, the landlord, posted an advertisement for the apartment online, and prospective tenants, Nir Haim Shacharoff and Yarden Rosen, responded to the ad with a series of text messages with one in particular stating, “Good morning 😊 we want the house 💃🏻👯♀️✌🏽☄️🐿️🍾 just need to go over the details…When suits you?”[23] Based on this message and others, Dahan removed the listing. The court held that although the message and the emojis within were not a binding contract, it signaled optimism. It stated that the emojis along with the message deceived Dahan, which led to reliance. Notably, the “comet” emoji (☄️) and the “chipmunk” emoji (🐿️) by themselves are not commonly associated with any meaning beyond their fundamental representations. However, when used with the combination of emojis, the court elaborated that they represented a broader statement of happiness, further showcasing the difficulties courts face with emoji interpretation.
The following case establishes that the meaning of an emoji can drastically change with context. In McAlpine v. Bercow, a news report wrongly implicated Lord McAlpine, an English conservative politician, alleging abuse, which began trending on Twitter.[24] While the report did not directly name McAlpine, many individuals quickly and incorrectly suggested McAlpine. Subsequently, Sally Bercow, the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons, at the time, tweeted the following, “Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*.” McAlpine then filed a case against Bercow for defamation. The court began its analysis by identifying the context surrounding the tweet, the news report, the fact that McAlpine was trending on Twitter, and the general content of tweets. It elaborated that Twitter users likely interpreted “innocent face” to be read as stage directions or emojis, presumably akin to the “pleading face” emoji (🥺) or the “smiling face with halo” emoji (😇). Based on context, the court decided that the phrase negated a neutral interpretation and instead implied a negative connotation. The court held that a reasonable reader would understand the phrase as insincere and ironical, and thus decided the Tweet was defamatory.
B. Supplementary Sources
The following case demonstrates a comprehensive analysis involving consideration of context and supplemental sources. In Burrows v. Houda, an Australian court consulted foreign case law and considered context by referencing an emoji dictionary to analyze whether a tweet was defamatory.[25] Zali Burrows, a well-known Australian lawyer, filed a suit against Adam Houda, a well-known Australian criminal lawyer, stemming from a Twitter thread. The dispute began when Houda responded to a year-old article posted to Twitter regarding Burrow’s competency as a lawyer. A third-party user replied to the article stating, “July 2019 story. But what happened to her since?” to which Houda answered, “🤐,” the “zipper mouth face” emoji.[26] Other comments from third-party users included, “💥😂👻,” and “⏰ [T]ick tock.”[27] In its analysis, the court drew guidance from McAlpine, discussed above, in addition to other case law and debated calling on expert testimony. Ultimately, the court deemed expert evidence unnecessary for several reasons. First, neither party requested it, and the court was not inclined to impose the use of expert evidence. Secondly, the court determined that this specific emoji did not require a technical understanding, but rather common knowledge that could be inferred through other analyses. To further analyze the context surrounding Houda’s tweet, the court consulted Emojipedia but stressed that the dictionary definitions are a matter of broad impression, not a strict application. It determined that the “zipper mouth face” emoji (🤐) implied “a secret” or to “stop talking” in a scenario where an individual knows the answer but is prohibited from saying it. Based on the third-parties’ use of emojis, with “💥😂👻” likely indicating excitement and amusement, and “⏰ [T]ick tock” denoting the clock was ticking, it concluded that Houda’s tweet meant that there was a finding damaging to Burrow that Houda was not at liberty to disclose. The court held that Houda’s conduct was improper, noting that the tweet was ambiguous and deliberately misleading or harmful–akin to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Importantly, it recognized that digital communication necessitates a consultation of online sources.
IV. Lessons from Abroad
As the United States courts grapple with adapting to the digital age, emoji interpretation has emerged as a formidable challenge for judges, juries, and lawyers alike. While it is paramount to look to legal precedence within the United States, global precedence can also provide valuable insight. Through a comparative lens, it becomes evident that courts must analyze emojis within their societal, cultural, and environmental contexts.[28] Additionally, the courts must recognize that emoji interpretation requires a multifaceted approach encompassing a variety of sources. Digital communication is bringing emojis to the forefront of legal analyses, and it is imperative for the courts to adjust to the demands of emoji interpretation.
A. Context is Key
Emojis are not standalone symbols; instead, their meanings are intertwined with surrounding text, circumstances, and context. Context is a crucial element in emoji interpretation that clarifies ambiguities, mitigates misinterpretation, and accounts for societal, cultural, and environmental factors that shape the meaning of an emoji. In my Note, I identified three different types of contexts: societal context, relating to an individual’s demographics and social norms; cultural context, relating to an individual’s culture; and environmental context, relating to the relationship between the sender and receiver or the topic of conversation. In Dahan, the Israeli court emphasized the significance of considering context. The court recognized that emojis, when combined with text, can convey nuances and intentions. Particularly, the court relied on environmental context to identify that emojis such as the “woman dancing” emoji (💃🏻), the “women with bunny ears” emoji (👯♀️), and the “bottle with popping cork” emoji (🍾) signaled that the prospective tenants felt a sense of jubilation and optimism about renting the apartment. Context clarified the tone of the message and implicated the emotional state and intentions of the parties. Similarly, in McAlpine, the court considered the environmental and societal contexts that surrounded the emoji-adjacent phrase. Through examining the societal context, specifically the social norms, colloquialisms, and nuances associated with Twitter, the court understood that Twitter’s general social sphere likely had a significant impact on how a user would interpret the tweet. Generally, Twitter encompasses a sarcastic atmosphere, which would influence users to read “innocent face” with a sarcastic tone. Moreover, the court analyzed the environmental context, the news report, McAlpine’s trending status on Twitter, the Twitter community’s general perception of “innocent face” or “innocent” emojis (the “pleading face” emoji (🥺) or the “smiling face with halo” emoji (😇)), and the relationship between McAlpine and Bercow. The court’s contextual analysis illuminated Bercow’s intent and clarified the tweet’s ambiguity. Undoubtedly, a contextual analysis is an indispensable tool that the courts must take advantage of. By delving into the societal, cultural, and environmental contexts surrounding emoji use, courts can circumvent the challenges of digital communication with ease.
B. Supplementary Sources
Similarly to a traditional language, emojis are constantly evolving and shaped by generations, cultures, and environments. The surge of emojis in digital communication, along with their ever-increasing presence in legal proceedings, often presents unfamiliar interpretive challenges to legal professionals who have not yet navigated the novel and complex realm of emoji interpretation. A single emoji can encompass a multitude of meanings and interpretations, making it virtually impossible for an interpreter to understand an emoji’s meaning without the proper resources.
The dynamic nature of emojis necessitates a comprehensive analysis that draws upon various primary and secondary sources of evidence and legal research. The court’s analysis in Burrows is nearly a prime example of this multifaceted approach. Through a detailed examination of national case law, foreign case law, and emoji dictionaries, the court aptly and skillfully decoded the defendant’s intent, clarified the emoji’s ambiguity, and resolved potential misinterpretations. Remarkably, the Burrows court provided invaluable guidance to other courts by weighing the decision to call on expert testimony, advising interpreters to prioritize the broad impression of emoji definitions over rigid interpretations, and emphasizing that digital communication requires a consultation of online sources. Expanding on these key points, the meaning of an emoji, whether alone or in combination with others, is often deeply rooted in visual representation and societal, cultural, and environmental contexts. Accordingly, some instances demand a nuanced approach beyond what legal precedence and emoji dictionaries can provide. Thus, it would be appropriate and necessary for the court’s analysis to rely on testimony from an expert or an individual who shares a similar background as the speaker. For example, in the instance of drug trade, a court’s analysis may require an understanding of deceptive emojis such as the “palm tree” emoji (🌴) and the “four leaf clover” emoji (🍀). As such, a lack of testimony could seriously hinder the court’s analysis, underscoring the importance of calling upon an expert familiar with drug trafficking. Furthermore, as emphasized in Burrows, emoji dictionaries can serve as an initial point of reference, providing a baseline understanding of a given emoji. However, to truly unravel the complexities within emoji interpretation, the courts must broaden their scope. In addition to legal precedence, emoji dictionaries, and testimony, a range of online sources such as blogs, articles or news reports, forums, and surveys or studies may prove to be useful. A comprehensive approach as such ensures that courts are well-equipped to navigate the intricacies of emoji interpretation.
Conclusion
Beginning as a mere set of smiley faces, emojis have grown to be an integral part of daily digital communication habits. Emojis transcended their original purpose of serving as a simple enhancement to communication. Instead, these once simple playful symbols now carry significant weight and meaning, creating far-reaching implications within the judicial system. Consequently, courts across the globe are struggling to decipher emojis while striking a balance between embracing the nuances that come with these symbols and maintaining legal rigor. Emoji interpretation often creates a challenge for the courts as their meanings are visual-dependent and context-dependent. Nonetheless, courts are beginning to acknowledge that emoji interpretation necessitates a comprehensive analysis involving a consultation of various sources. This multifaceted approach is crucial in navigating the newfound complexities associated with emoji interpretation. With new emojis constantly being added, it is apparent that emojis are not going anywhere anytime soon. Thus, it is imperative for the courts to adapt and evolve alongside emojis and meet the demands of these dynamic symbols.
[1] Throughout this article, unless otherwise specified, the names of the emojis will be sourced from Emojipedia, and Apple iOS 16.4 emoji renditions will be used.
[2] See Patricia Vilma Graham, Note, Emojis: An Approach to Interpretation, 46 UC L. SF Commc’ns Ent. J. 123 (2024),
https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol46/iss2/3/.
[3] See Jacopo Prisco, Shigetaka Kurita: The Man Who Invented Emoji, CNN (May 22, 2018), https://www.cnn.com/style/article/emoji-shigetaka-kurita-standards-manual/index.html (describing the creation of emojis in Japan in 1999); Greg Robson, Emojis In Modern Day Communication, Oxbridge (Mar. 21, 2023), https://oxbridgehomelearning.uk/blog/emojis-in-modern-day-communication (describing popularity of emojis in digital communication).
[4] See History of Emoji, Teaching Channel (Jan. 7, 2019), https://www.teachingchannel.com/k12-hub/blog/emojis-history/ (providing emoji history).
[5] See Emily Green, Dive Into the Past and Learn When Computers First Became Popular, Ignite Digit. (Oct. 17, 2023), https://ignitedigital.com/resources/blog/search-engine-marketing-sem/dive-into-the-past-and-learn-when-computers-first-became-popular/ (reviewing the popularity of computers).
[6] See Hannah Ritchie et. al., Internet, Our World Data, https://ourworldindata.org/internet#interactive-charts-on-internet (last visited Apr. 6, 2024) (providing an interactive chart on access to the internet).
[7] See Alia Paavola, Smartphone History: A Complete Timeline, TEXTLINE (Dec. 19, 2022), https://www.textline.com/blog/smartphone-history (presenting a timeline of smartphone history).
[8] See Prisco, supra note 3 (reporting on the origin of emojis).
[9] See Ermal Alibali, The Fascinating History of Emoji: From Japan to Global Phenomenon, Medium (Feb. 28, 2023), https://medium.com/gameplify/the-fascinating-history-of-emoji-from-japan-to-global-phenomenon-b9a9dba232d (exploring the global explosion of emojis).
[10] See Arielle Pardes, The WIRED Guide to Emoji, WIRED (Feb. 1, 2018, 9:23 AM), https://www.wired.com/story/guide-emoji/ (discussing emoji history and global explosion); 40 Statistics on Emojis for 2024, Sixth City Mktg., https://www.sixthcitymarketing.com/emoji-statistics/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024) (detailing emoji statistics).
[11] See Robson, supra note 3 (“Today, emojis are now used in almost all forms of communication, including social media posts, text messages, emails, and even in online learning.”).
[12] See Eric Goldman, 2023 Emoji Law Year-in-Review, Tech. and Mktg. L. Blog (Jan. 22, 2024), https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/01/2023-emoji-law-year-in-review.htm (giving statistics on emojis in court opinions in 2023).
[13] See id. (providing 2023 emoji legal statistics).
[14] See S.W. Terminal LTD v. Achter Land & Cattle LTD, [2023] S.K.K.B. 116 (Can. Sask. K.B.), https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skkb/doc/2023/2023skkb116/2023skkb116.html; See Burrows v Houda [2020] NSWDC 485 (Austl.), https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2020/485.html.
[15] See Alex Rawlings, Why Emoji Mean Different Things in Different Cultures, BBC (Dec. 11, 2018), https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181211-why-emoji-mean-different-things-in-different-cultures (discussing the 2017 Ramadan study).
[16] See Kori Williams, The Corn Emoji Certainly Has Some Interesting Meanings on TikTok, Distractify (Nov. 25, 2021), https://www.distractify.com/p/corn-emoji-meaning-tiktok (“In this case, 🌽 = porn. Plenty of people in the adult entertainment industry have used this emoji or simply the word ‘corn’ to talk about their experiences in that line of work.”).
[17] See Rawlings, supra note 15 (describing the meaning of the “clapping hand” emoji (👏)); The Language of Emoji: Universal or Cross-cultural?, Medium (July 19, 2022), https://medium.com/paktagency/the-language-of-emoji-universal-or-cross-cultural-795214f978ec (“The applause emoji (👏) is similarly different in different cultures. For example, while it symbolizes congratulations or praise in Western cultures, Chinese people consider it a symbol of making love.”).
[18] The following emojis were used in order of sequence: porn star = the “ear of corn” emoji (🌽) and the “star” emoji (⭐️); shyness = the “backhand index pointing right” emoji (👉) and the “backhand index pointing left” emoji (👈); blank stare or awe = the “eye” emoji (👁️), the “mouth” emoji (👄), and the “eye” emoji (👁️); dancing or “throwing it back” = the “mosquito” emoji (🦟), the “cricket” emoji (🦗), the “mosquito” emoji (🦟), and the “cricket” emoji (🦗); and cottagecore aesthetic = the “basket” emoji (🧺), the “woman’s hat” emoji (👒), the “glass of milk” emoji (🥛), and the “cow” emoji (🐄).
[19] See 🌿 Four Twenty / 420, Emojipedia, https://emojipedia.org/420 (last visited Apr. 3, 2024) (listing emojis that represent marijuana); see also Celeste Houmard, These Innocent-Looking Emojis Could Be Hiding Nefarious Messages, Ohio Officials Say, Kron 4 (Mar. 23, 2023), https://www.kron4.com/news/national/these-innocent-looking-emojis-could-be-hiding-nefarious-messages-ohio-officials-say/ (listing other emoji representations of marijuana).
[20] See 🌿 Four Twenty / 420, supra note 19 (listing the emoji combinations). The following emojis were used in order of sequence: cooked = the “face without mouth” emoji (😶) and the “cooking” emoji (🍳); stoned = the “flushed face” emoji (😳) and the “leaf fluttering in wind” emoji (🍃); and blazed = the “flushed face” emoji (😳) and the “fire” emoji (🔥).
[21] See Sarosh Bana, The Trouble with Emoji, APSM (July 27, 2023), https://www.asiapacificsecuritymagazine.com/the-trouble-with-emoji/ (detailing emojis that represent illicit drugs in India); Imelda García & Carmina Tiscareño, Estos Son los Emojis Que Usan los Traficantes de Drogas, Según la DEA, aldiadallas (Jan. 18, 2022), https://www.dallasnews.com/espanol/al-dia/noticias/2022/01/18/emoji-dea-trafico-de-drogas-decodificar/ (describing emojis that drug traffickers are using in Mexico); see also David Matthau, Mexican Drug Cartels are Using These Emoji Codes to Sell Fake Pills in NJ, NewJersey101.5 (Dec. 21, 2021), https://nj1015.com/mexican-drug-cartels-are-using-these-emoji-codes-to-sell-fake-pills-in-nj/ (listing additional emoji illustrations of illicit drugs in Mexico).
[22] See SClaim (Herzliya) 30823-08-16 Dahan v. Shakaroff, Santa Clara Law Digital Commons (Feb. 24, 2017) (Isr.), https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/1515/; see also Ramona Pringle, Using the Wrong Emoji Can Cost You — Literally, CBS News (May 26, 2017), https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/emoji-lawsuit-1.4131697.
[23] See Pringle, supra note 22 (translating the quotation). The prospective tenant used the following emojis in order of sequence: the “smiling face with smiling eyes” emoji (😊); the “woman dancing” emoji (💃🏻); the “women with bunny ears” emoji (👯♀️); the “victory hand” emoji (✌🏽) (more commonly known as the “peace sign” emoji); the “comet” emoji (☄️); the “chipmunk” emoji (🐿️); and the “bottle with popping cork” emoji (🍾).
[24] McAlpine v. Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB), https://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/McAlpine-v-Bercow-Judgment.pdf.
[25] See Burrows v Houda [2020] NSWDC 485 (Austl.), https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2020/485.html. This was the first time an Australian court was asked to consider whether an emoji could be defamatory.
[26] Burrows, NSWDC 485 ¶13.
[27] The third-party user tweets used the following emojis: the “collision” emoji (💥), the “face with tears of joy” emoji (😂), and the “ghost” emoji (👻); and the “alarm clock” emoji (⏰).
[28] Although not addressed in this comparative analysis, visual representation, heavily discussed in my Note, is also an important consideration in emoji interpretation.
Any reproduction of the Article, including, but not limited to its publication, posting, or excerption in print, or on the internet, shall give attribution to the Article’s original publication on the online MSLR Forum, using the following method of citation:
“Patricia Vilma Graham, Decoding Emojis: Lessons from Abroad, MICH. ST. L. REV. FORUM (May 2, 2024).”
Originally published on the Michigan State Law Review Online Forum