Emojis as Terroristic Threats?

By DEANNA NUCCI

A Brooklyn teenager was arrested in January for making terroristic threats. The catch was his apparent threats were interpreted through emoji picture messages.

Osiris Aritsy, 17, put the emoji threats on his Facebook page, which concerned authorities. If he had been convicted, Aritsy would have had to carry a sentence up to seven years in prison, according to The Guardian.

The messages have since been deleted, but they conveyed contempt for the police with emojis pointing three guns at an officer.

In this debate over whether or not emojis can be interpreted as a language, lawmakers question the potential for emoji based anti-terrorists laws. As reported by The Guardian “emojis constitute a class of what linguists refer to as icons.” As what is defined of an icon, it is a sign that resembles the emotion, such as laughter, anger, or sadness.

A symbol, like the emoji, “make up a spoken language are meaningful, not because of any inherent resemblance relationship with the ideas that they point to, but rather, their meaning derives from an unspoken agreement between speakers of a linguistic community: the symbol will point to a specific entity or idea, agreed upon by all” as laid out in the Guardian article on Aritsy’s case.

NYPD Detective Sgt. Joseph Giacalone told CBS New York that all threats, Aritsy’s and ones like them, must be taken seriously.

While authorities seem to debate the issue, people, who use these same emojis on a daily basis, worry that their own use of the emojis can get them into trouble without intending to.

Allison Economou, 20, an avid Facebook user says, “I have never used emojis to threaten anyone, but since this story, I have been reserved with the statuses that I post in fear that they will be misinterpreted.”

As a result of the Aritsy’s threats, a criminal complaint reported by DNAinfo.com stressed that “the defendant has caused informant and other New York City police officers to fear for their safety, for public safety, and to suffer alarm and annoyance.”

Others have noticed concern from this case and have taken a stance whether or not they would consider emojis a form of threat.

The issues brought up by Aritsy’s case involves intent and how the message is interpreted. “Like anything else if you are using emojis to threaten somebody or to cause harm than it absolutely should be seen as a threat,” says John Kelly, 22.

He explains that for example, “if someone is texting their ex-wife nonstop all the time and they start sending little gun pictures then yes that is something to be considered a threat, because it’s a message that somebody feels threatened by and yes that’s completely viable and should be respected as so, but like I said it is situational.”

AUDIO: Listen to Kelly here:

Other students have different views on the same issues. Matt Gilbert, 20, a Ramapo student explains, “I don’t think emojis can really be considered actual evidence in a case, because they are not compelling. They are just used to express emotions, but not really mean anything.”

AUDIO: Listen to Gilbert’s view:

Aritsy’s case was dropped by a grand jury in February, whose panel declined to indict him on a terroristic threat. Fred Pratt, Aritsy’s defense attorney, interviews with DNAinfo.com saying,”the charge was an overreach by both the police and the DA’s office…I think it’s an overreaction.”

Overreaction or not, law enforcer say it is imperative that no threat over Facebook or other social media outlets be overlooked in a terroristic way, especially after 9/11 and other attacks there after.

Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union tells Buzzfeed that “Emojis are a form of communication and are protected by the First Amendment.” Social media users then run the risk of expressing their rights in the form of an emoji, just as they do through speech.