As someone who grew up firmly entrenched in the era of technology, interpreting what people say via plain text on a screen is almost second nature to me. Emojis, elongated words, abbreviations, as silly as it sounds, all convey their own unique meaning. So, it follows that how to deal with those unique meanings is an important question that jurors and the legal system were going to have to deal with someday. Well that day is today, as an argument over the significance of emojis and other kinds of virtual language have made their way into the much-anticipated trial of alleged Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht.

Silk Road was an online site where many illicit transactions took place–particularly the sale of illegal drugs. It was a virtual black market, hidden under layers of secrecy and encryption. In November 2013, the website was shut down and Ulbricht, 29, was arrested and accused of being “Dread Pirate Roberts,” the founder of the site.

Ulbricht is now on trial, facing charges of money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and procuring murder. That last one refers to the fact that “assassins” allegedly advertised their services on Silk Road.

His trial has taken a weird turn though. It was more common when I was younger, but every couple of years someone writes a reactionary article claiming that today’s teenagers are using emoticons and abbreviations to set up giant orgies (or whatever it is that kids do these days). These articles are usually much-ridiculed by anyone who’s ever seen a computer before, like this CNN piece from December entitled “28 Internet Acronyms Every Parent Should Know.” Choice abbreviations from this article included: “IWSN – I want sex now” “GNOC – Get naked on camera,” and “KPC– Keeping parents clueless.”

Well, parts of Ulbricht’s trial kind of sounds like a real life reenactment of an article warning parents about the acronyms that those darn kids nowadays are using.

pic.twitter.com/5YGWmqi0jA

— Sarah Jeong (@sarahjeong) January 23, 2015

That brings us back to the whole emoji issue too, because apparently this happened “IRL”:

He said “emoticon” literally every time there was an emoticon pic.twitter.com/deisI0nSEH

— Sarah Jeong (@sarahjeong) January 23, 2015

There was also a  particular message at issue in which a “smilie face” was used, and the prosecutor didn’t mention the smilie face after reading the message to the jury.

Essentially, the issue here is that the attorneys in this case are realizing that they can’t treat Ulbricht’s emails, chats, texts, or whatever other form of online communication like they’d treat a letter or an audio recording. The ways in which we communicate online have developed their own nuances, such as elongating certain words like “soooo” or using multiple question marks. Both of these were discussed in Ulbricht’s trial so far.

That’s why Joshua Dratel, Ulbricht’s attorney, wrote a letter to the judge asking that any forms of written communication–including emails, chats, and texts–be shown to the jury, not read aloud. He argued that the danger of different inflections, or ignoring parts of the message altogether (like just saying “emoticon”) was too high. The prosecution, obviously, disagreed.

Eventually Judge Katherine B. Forrest allowed a compromise. She allowed the chats and other text-based communications to be read into the record, but also instructed the jury to read them on their own and take note of any symbols.

This is just one part of a trial that in many ways deals with a world that has the potential to be utterly foreign to some of the jurors. Judge Forrest even recommended to both sides of the case that they develop a glossary for the terms that jurors may never have heard of, like Bitcoin, IP address, and Tor.

It’s a division in our society that is as inevitable as it is ubiquitous–knowledge of technology divides people of different ages, different social classes, and even different interests. That being said, it’s clear that the ways in which we communicate are ever-changing, and not as easy to interpret as they used to be. It’s easy to tell if someone is sarcastic from their tone when you listen to a recorded voicemail; it is not as easy when reading an email. The jurors will have to weigh these changes in technology along with the charges against Ulbricht, and moving forward, I bet we’ll see a lot more cases where the meanings of different facets of technological communication are up for debate.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emojis in Court: Does a :) Really Matter? appeared first on Law Street.

To blog about such a controversial topic like the use and possession of guns in the United States is something I want to tread carefully with. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion surrounding the debate, but this week I could not help but question the legality of guns when coming across two particular cases.

On Thursday, Don Spirit killed his six grandchildren, aged from three months to 10 years old, and his daughter before turning the gun on himself. Spirit, whose case has been described as a murder-suicide, was someone who had already been involved in the criminal justice system. According to Fox:

In 2001, Spirit pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after he fatally shot his 8-year-old son in the head in a hunting accident. Spirit, who also was convicted in 1998 for felony possession of marijuana, was sentenced to three years in prison for the shooting.

The details of the investigation are still in the very early stages, so it is hard to understand the motive — if there was one — the facts surrounding Spirit’s mental health, and his relationship with the victims. Aside from knowing these facts, I cannot help but wonder how Spirit even managed to have a gun after being convicted of a shooting in 2001? Gun accessibility legislation for ex-convicts really needs to be reconsidered in light of this case.

What I feel a lot of people fail to recognize is that the most common method of suicide in the United States is through the use of guns. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2011 there were 39,518 deaths by suicide. An overwhelming amount of these deaths (19,990) were the result of firearms.  If we are a country that aims to protect our citizens and the rights of others, surely we should look out for ourselves just as much? If we have such easy accessibility to the weapons of our choice that could end our lives, should we not reconsider the laws surrounding them? Do not get me wrong, I am more than aware that the black market for firearms is an ever-growing underground business, but if we cannot efficiently manage the legal selling and keeping of licensed handguns, we have no hope to stop the illegal sales and handlings.

My point needs to be extended to the safety of those living with others who have access to guns. On the same day as the tragic deaths resulting from Spirit’s heinous act, a fifth grade boy was arrested in Michigan after being found to have stolen his grandfather’s pistol. Not only was the boy found with the gun, but he had also created a list of names in the back of his homework book of people he allegedly planned to harm. As a result of this discovery, the boy has been suspended from school for ten days, and could face possible expulsion. Again, this could be my criminological thinking coming out, but I cannot help but wonder whether this punishment will actually solve the problem of what the boy intended to do? I certainly do not think he should be given jail time, or any formal sentence, but I do think that he needs to be aware of just how serious his actions were. Why? Because if he is not aware of it, what is to stop him doing it all over again, and just being more careful.

I fear that in a culture where are part of normality, when conflict arises in such intense situations, sometimes the only resolution seems to be in the form of violence via the use of weapons. I personally do not think this reflects on the attitudes and actions of those involved in this violence, I think it is the instinct that they have been taught their entire lives, to protect themselves in an extremely lethal way. In order to enact firmer laws that protect our safety, we have to start working on understanding the reason for such laws. As someone who is British, and not used to the debate on the use of guns, one of the main things I have come to realize is that it is a right for US citizens to own a gun, and by restricting this right through legislation, essentially the country contradicts all it stands for. As hard as it is to stand back from what an entire population believes in, more awareness needs to be raised toward the consequences of guns, not just for now, but for the future.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Auraelius via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Two More Disturbing Gun Cases Beg the Question When Will We Change? appeared first on Law Street.

Rachel Canning is an 18-year-old girl in New Jersey who attends private school. She’s a good student who excels athletically and is in the process of receiving college acceptances. And she’s also currently involved in a lawsuit — against her parents.

The facts are still a little muddled, but here’s the basic outline: Rachel Canning turned 18 in November, at which point her parents threatened to cut her off financially and emotionally. She claims the threat was unwarranted; her parents claim that it was the result of her refusal to follow any of their house rules. It was at this point that Rachel voluntarily left her home to stay with a friend. Her parents stopped paying her pricy high school tuition, and have said that they will not pay for her college education unless she makes changes. So Rachel is suing them for financial support, claiming that she was abandoned. Her parents claim that she is just acting spoiled and that she made the choice to leave and she’s welcome back at any time.

It’s taking a lot of effort for me to keep this post from becoming a total rant about this girl and people like her. But really, the world doesn’t need another article complaining about my generation. I’ve read plenty. And they all say the same thing — we’re spoiled, lazy, entitled, brats. Just read this headline by Forbes: “Are Millennials ‘Deluded Narcissists?'”  I’ve also read dozens of articles combatting that notion and pointing out that pretty much every generation has been derided by their elders. For example: “Why Hiring Millennials is Good for Your Business.” Do a Google search on millennials and you’ll find hundreds of articles in this vein. It’s a hot topic, and everyone has an opinion.

Canning’s story isn’t the only one that’s earned national derision recently. This fall, a teenager named Ethan Couch drove drunk and caused a gruesome accident that killed 4 people. His defense team argued that he had “affluenza,” meaning that he had been raised with so much privilege and so utterly without limits on his behavior that he did not understand the potential consequences of his actions. He will be serving no jail time, but instead will be put on probation and sent to a rehab facility.

Or let’s look at pop culture. “Rich Kids of Beverly Hills” is a show that follows the lives of incredibly wealthy young people. Here’s my favorite clip, in which 25-year-old Roxy complains about her parents cutting her off (except that by “cut off” she means she can still live at home, drive the car they bought her, and receive spending money):

Or, check out this blog: White Whine: A Collection of First World Problems. There are some real winners on there, like this one:

Before I continue, I feel like I need to include a disclaimer: I am relatively privileged. I have had very little struggle in my life. I was raised by wonderful parents who were able to support me when needed. I’ve tried to thank them for that as best I could, and help out when I can. And I feel very fortunate for all the advantages I’ve been given in life, because I know that I am in a small minority of people who have been given those advantages. I by no means consider myself spoiled, because of the values and work ethic that those same great parents raised me with, but before I criticize anyone else, I feel as though I need to acknowledge that I do come from a place of privilege. I know for a fact I have had some incredibly selfish, dumb, and silly complaints. I am a millennial.

That being said, the way these three and their peers behave flabbergasts me. Literally, it’s unfathomable. Like I said, this could devolve into an insane, probably un-publishable rant about their actions. I could slam them for their ignorance, their laziness, their avarice. I could talk about how I could never imagine acting with such a disgusting sense of entitlement.

But here’s the thing: Rachel Canning, Ethan Couch, and Roxy are in some ways caricatures. They’re extreme examples. Ridiculousness exists at the fringe of society. Very few people have lives like those three. But what bothers me the most is the way that their behavior is institutionalized by society and the law. Couch is the most obvious example — his “affluenza” defense worked. He will not go to prison for the people he killed. Roxy and her friends have their own television show.

We don’t know what will happen to Rachel Canning, and to be fair, we don’t know both sides of the story. There may be more to it, and their family situation may truly be very messed up. But based on what we’ve heard from Rachel and her parents, it seems relatively cut and dry to me. She is asking her parents to continue to support her, against their will, after she has legally become an adult, rather than making any attempt to support herself.

And what bothers me is that Canning’s case may actually make it in front of a judge, and legal experts say that if it does, it may revolutionize family law. Jeralyn Lawrence, the incoming Family Law Section Chair of the New Jersey Bar Association stated, “this could open the floodgates of recalcitrant kids fighting with their parents, moving out and then suing for them to keep paying.” It could mean that teenagers who move out, even teenagers who are 18 or over and legally adults, could demand that their parents continue to support them in front of a court of law. I don’t think my generation, for the most part, is that bad. But if that actually does happen, well, I’m going to have to rescind that statement.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Law is Enabling Millennials to Be Even Worse Entitled Brats appeared first on Law Street.