How would you interpret it?

你會怎麼想？

When it turned up as evidence in a court case, a New Zealand judge convicted the sender of stalking, sentencing him to eight months in jail.

這則訊息真實出現在紐西蘭法庭，法官判決發送者跟蹤騷擾罪，並處以八個月徒刑。

The judge reasoned that the words plus emoji combined to convey an actual threat.

法官解釋，當那些訊息內容加上表情符號就構成了要脅。

What about this one?

那這個呢？

Fist, point, ambulance?

拳頭、手指、救護車？

No text, just the three emojis.

沒有文字，只有三個表情符號。

The defendant here was also charged for stalking.

這名被告也被以跟蹤騷擾起訴。

He had previously attacked the guy he sent this message to.

他曾經攻擊過當事人。

Between 2004 and 2018 there's been a surge of emoticons and now emojis in the courtroom.

在 2004 年到 2018 年間，在法庭上關於顏文字與表情符號的案件節節攀升。

They're cropping up as evidence in cases from prostitution stings to real estate disputes.

它們從賣淫到房地產糾紛等案件都曾被當成證據。

It's the world we live in, sending a wrong string of emojis could be held against you in court.

在現代社會，你發出的表情符號，有天可能會在法庭上變成對自己不利的證據。

To charge someone with a crime there's a couple elements.

要指控別人犯罪要達成幾點要素。

You have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the illegal act.

你得提出合理證據某人犯了法。

But another part of it is establishing that they did so with criminal intent.

另一點是提出某人是故意的。

They acted knowingly or maliciously.

某人知情且故意為之。

Running over someone in your car on accident while horrific is something different than taking aim and mowing someone down because you have it out for them.

不小心開車碾過別人，跟對準別人撞下去是不一樣的，因為後者是你蓄意做的。

Interpretation is where emojis present a special set of challenges.

如何解讀表情符號變成一大難題。

You've probably heard of the Unicode Consortium.

你可能聽過統一碼聯盟。

They're the non-profit group that standardizes emojis.

他們是統籌表情符號的非營利組織。

The Unicode value is a basic black and white outline.

他們訂定出黑白的表情符號基本架構。

All the fun details are up to the platforms.

其他平台則可以自己決定細節。

Here's the emoji that is listed as grinning face with smiling eyes by unicode.

這些是被統一碼列為露齒笑的表情符號。

Researchers found a significant split in how people interpreted the sentiment of this one.

研究者發現其中某個族群在表情符號的解讀上，有很大的差異。

That's just among Apple users.

也就是蘋果的用戶。

To up the interpretation difficulty, check out how it renders across different platforms, and how those different users interpret it.

為了表示解讀表情符號的難處，來看看不同平台的用戶對同一個表情符號有怎樣不同的解讀。

If a court has to interpret both what the sender meant and how the recipient might have understood it, that's a lot of room for misinterpretation, and that's what makes emojis challenging in a legal sense.

如果法庭得闡釋雙方對於同一個表情符號的見解，那會有許多可能被曲解的空間，這讓表情符號的處理在法庭上變得棘手。

Teamwork makes the dream work high heel, money bags.

團隊力量大，加上高跟鞋、錢袋的表情符號。

Prosecutors offered this message as evidence that the sender was guilty of pimping charges.

檢察官呈上這則訊息作為證據表示被告有拉皮條的罪。

They said the emojis and the messages implied a working relationship between the dude who sent it and the woman he was sending it to.

他們說這表情符號加上訊息，暗示了傳送訊息的男子與接收訊息的女子之間的工作關係。

The defense said, no, it could also be read as his attempt at starting a romantic relationship.

被告則表示，不，這也可以解讀成他想跟那個人展開戀愛關係。

It all goes down in the DMs, Your Honor.

法官大人，在訊息裡的寫得清清楚楚。

So far, there hasn't been a case that really hinged solely on the way you interpret a specific emoji.

到目前為止，還沒有一件案子真的是以表情符號作為判案的唯一標準。

But with the explosion, and texting, and DMing, experts say it's only a matter of time, and our courts haven't yet established a consistent way of handling emojis when they are entered as evidence.

但有了這些紛擾與龐大的訊息量，專家表示這只是時間的問題，且法庭還沒制定關於表情符號作為證據的完善措施。

Sometimes they are omitted altogether or they get read aloud which neuters their effect.

有時表情符號會被被省略，有時則會被大聲朗誦出來，讓訊息中性化。

Smiley face, smiley face.

笑臉，笑臉。

A good recent example of this was the trial of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht.

最近一個案例為絲路創辦人 Ross Ulbricht 的庭審。

There were emojis in the transcript that was being read as evidence and his attorneys argued that it was critical to the case that jurors be shown the emojis.

在證據謄本上的表情符號被大聲朗誦時，他的律師表示陪審團應該要看到表情符號們的原貌。

The judge eventually agreed.

法官最終同意了。

Law professor and emoji law expert, Eric Goldman suggests that we should adopt a standard way of dealing with emojis as evidence.

法學教授與表情符號法律專家 Eric Goldman 建議人們應制定在法庭上使用表情符號作為證據的標準。

For one thing, we should show them just as they were originally sent rather than trying to read them out loud or describe them with words.

其中一點，應該把表情符號完整的展現出來，而非僅以文字大聲朗誦。

A pair of law professors in Australia propose we create a specialty court where accredited specialists in digital speech issues could assist judges.

兩名澳洲法學教授建議設立一個有網路對話專家可以協助法官的特別法庭。

The professors say this setup would be similar to courts that specialize in juvenile justice, mental health, or intellectual property.

他們表示此概念就如同青少年法庭、精神健康法庭與智慧財產權法庭等特殊法庭一樣。

One final suggestion from the experts is basically take away a little bit of the copyright protection for how emojis are rendered.

他們最後一個建議是放寬表情符號的版權限制。

The reason they all look different across different platforms is that companies want to avoid getting into intellectual property disputes over the rendering of emojis, like grinning face with smiling eyes.

表情符號在不同的平台都長得不一樣的原因是這些公司不想觸犯彼此表情符號樣貌的智慧財產權，如瞇眼露齒笑。

So Goldman is saying basically, if we can all just use the same rendering across all of our platforms, we've then reduced the chances that somebody is going to misinterpret what you sent.

Goldman 基本上就是在說，如果我們能統一所有平台表情符號的長相，就能減少訊息被誤解的機會。

Thanks for watching.

感謝觀看。

Hit the comments to puzzle out any ambiguous emoji laden messages you've gotten recently.

在留言區留下近期收到意思很模糊的表情符號吧！

Let us know how you think the courts should handle emojis when they're entered as evidence.

也告訴我們你覺得當表情符號被當成證據呈上時，法庭該如何處理？

Hit the bell icon to get notified when we put out a new video, and we'll see you next time.

打開小鈴鐺，這樣當我們推出新影片時你才會收到通知，下次見。